[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4E2F43C8.8080805@gregd.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 17:46:32 -0500
From: Greg Dietsche <greg@...gd.org>
To: Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>
CC: Nicolas Palix <Nicolas.Palix@...ia.fr>,
Greg Dietsche <gregory.dietsche@....edu>,
Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, julia@...u.dk,
Gilles.Muller@...6.fr, rdunlap@...otime.net,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
cocci@...u.dk
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] coccicheck: add parallel execution
On 7/26/2011 8:53 AM, Michal Marek wrote:
> Why not move the loop into some Makefile and let make take care of the
> parallel execution? Something among the lines of
>
> results := check1.out check2.out ... (generated)
> coccicheck: $(results)
> cat $^
>
> %.out: FORCE
> ... run given test and store its result ...
>
> then the user can simply type make -j6 coccicheck.
>
> Note: I haven't seen the patch, I only got Nicolas' mail now.
>
> Michal
>
yes, I agree, that would be better - especially from a user perspective.
I'm not much of a makefile expert at all. I did try that approach
initially, but it seemed like it was going to turn into a rewrite of the
coccinelle script. If someone can do it via make, I'd say go for it :)
I won't have much free time for the foreseeable future to tackle it.
using "make -j" is much more comfortable and intuitive than typing
PARALLEL= ...
Greg
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists