[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160621212839.GZ25646@wotan.suse.de>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 23:28:39 +0200
From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>
To: "Nicolas Palix (LIG)" <Nicolas.Palix@...g.fr>
Cc: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>, Gilles.Muller@...6.fr,
mmarek@...e.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
markivx@...eaurora.org, stephen.boyd@...aro.org,
zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, broonie@...nel.org,
ming.lei@...onical.com, tiwai@...e.de, johannes@...solutions.net,
chunkeey@...glemail.com, hauke@...ke-m.de,
jwboyer@...oraproject.org, dmitry.torokhov@...il.com,
dwmw2@...radead.org, jslaby@...e.com,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, deepa.kernel@...il.com,
cocci@...teme.lip6.fr
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/8] coccicheck: enable parmap support
On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 11:00:53PM +0200, Nicolas Palix (LIG) wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Le 21/06/16 à 22:43, Julia Lawall a écrit :
> >
> >
> >On Tue, 21 Jun 2016, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> >
> >>On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 10:17:38PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>On Tue, 21 Jun 2016, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Coccinelle has had parmap support since 1.0.2, this means
> >>>>it supports --jobs, enabling built-in multithreaded functionality,
> >>>>instead of needing one to script it out. Just look for --jobs
> >>>>in the help output to determine if this is supported.
> >>>>
> >>>>Also enable the load balancing to be dynamic, so that if a
> >>>>thread finishes early we keep feeding it.
> >>>>
> >>>>Note: now that we have all things handled for us, redirect stderr to
> >>>>stdout as well to capture any possible errors or warnings issued by
> >>>>coccinelle.
> >>>>
> >>>>If --jobs is not supported we fallback to the old mechanism.
> >>>>This also now accepts DEBUG_FILE= to specify where you want
> >>>>stderr to be redirected to, by default we redirect stderr to
> >>>>/dev/null.
> >>>
> >>>Why do you want to do something different for standard error in the parmap
> >>>and nonparmap case?
> >>
> >>We should just deprecate non-parmap later.
> >
> >that's not really getting at the point. I like the DEBUG_FILE= solution.
> >I don't like merging stderr and stdout. So you've put what to my mind is
> >the good solution only in the deprecated case (to my understanding of
> >the commit message).
>
> I agree. You're not just "enabling parmap support". You're
> also changing how messages to stderr are handled.
> Maybe add the DEBUG_FILE mechanism in a separate patch for both
> modes (parmap and non-parmap).
I'd prefer to just rip out non-parmap support and bump coccinelle
requiremetns to at least 1.0.3, thoughts?
Luis
Powered by blists - more mailing lists