Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 11:09:12 +0100 From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> To: Harti Brandt <harti@freebsd.org> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [TEST] make -j patch [take 2] Message-ID: <95167.1100254152@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 12 Nov 2004 11:06:54 %2B0100." <20041112105437.T42945@beagle.kn.op.dlr.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <20041112105437.T42945@beagle.kn.op.dlr.de>, Harti Brandt writes: >On Fri, 12 Nov 2004, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > >PK>In message <20041112090905.GD41844@ip.net.ua>, Ruslan Ermilov writes: >PK> >PK>>But you don't give an opportunity to control this on a sub-make >PK>>level (that's what I ask for). >PK> >PK>Why would that be of any use ? If you run "make universe" the task >PK>at hand is to get "make universe" to complete. You should not care >PK>which partcular submake starts how many jobs when, you should only >PK>care that it works as efficient as possible. > >A new make is not necessarily a sub-make in the sense as started by >$(MAKE). A make could also be started by, for example, an awk script or >whatever running from make and who's task has not directly to do with the >top make's task. Something like: And this will get correctly detected as long as the environment variable gets passed to the submake. >I'm not sure whether automatically putting the make started by portinstall >into the same group of makes as the top make is what one wants in such >cases. Can you explain just why you think it would be beneficial to have less control with the total load ? -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?95167.1100254152>