linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] coccinelle: fix parallel build with CHECK=scripts/coccicheck

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 14 Nov 2017 12:09:29 +0100 (CET)
From:   Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
To:     Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>
cc:     Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
        cocci@...teme.lip6.fr, Nicolas Palix <nicolas.palix@...g.fr>,
        Gilles Muller <Gilles.Muller@...6.fr>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] coccinelle: fix parallel build with
 CHECK=scripts/coccicheck



On Tue, 14 Nov 2017, Masahiro Yamada wrote:

> Hi Julia,
>
>
> 2017-11-14 18:49 GMT+09:00 Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>:
> >> +
> >> +    # If -j option is given to Make, scripts/coccicheck runs in parallel.
> >> +    # If coccinelle also runs in parallel, it fails because multiple processes
> >> +    # try to get access to the same subdirectory that stores stdout/stderr.
> >> +    # No need to parallelize coccinelle in this case - this mode takes only
> >> +    # one file input.
> >> +    NPROC=1
> >
> > Since I am also changing Coccinelle to avoid the problem, maybe it would
> > be better to just remove the explanation sentence (If coccinelle also runs
> > in parallel,...).
> >
> > julia
>
> OK.  Which lines are unneeded?
>
> Is it OK to remove all the comments, then just add "NPROC=1"?

How about keeping "# No need to parallelize coccinelle in this case - this
mode takes only one file input."?

But if you think it is obvious, it would be ok to remove it also.  Someone
can always do git blame and read the commit message if they have
questions.

julia