From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755804Ab3I3Rgk (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Sep 2013 13:36:40 -0400 Received: from mail-qc0-f171.google.com ([209.85.216.171]:53331 "EHLO mail-qc0-f171.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755244Ab3I3Rgj (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Sep 2013 13:36:39 -0400 Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 14:36:27 -0300 From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo To: Ingo Molnar Cc: David Ahern , Linus Torvalds , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Peter Zijlstra , Thomas Gleixner , Andrew Morton , Jiri Olsa , Namhyung Kim Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf auto-dep: Speed up feature tests by building them in parallel Message-ID: <20130930173627.GF10293@ghostprotocols.net> References: <20130912184341.GA11400@ghostprotocols.net> <52321CE4.1080804@gmail.com> <20130912200236.GC11400@ghostprotocols.net> <20130912203116.GD32644@gmail.com> <20130912204313.GA3259@gmail.com> <20130915091029.GA21465@gmail.com> <20130930164210.GA22342@gmail.com> <20130930171220.GC10293@ghostprotocols.net> <20130930172741.GD10293@ghostprotocols.net> <20130930173052.GE10293@ghostprotocols.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130930173052.GE10293@ghostprotocols.net> X-Url: http://acmel.wordpress.com User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Em Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 02:30:52PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo escreveu: > Em Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 02:27:41PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo escreveu: > > Em Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 02:12:20PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo escreveu: > > > Em Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 06:42:10PM +0200, Ingo Molnar escreveu: > > > > This series (with combo patch attached) implements (much) faster > > > > perf-tools feature-auto-detection. > Removed python-devel and it correctly turned those off: > > ... libpython: [ OFF ] > ... libpython-version: [ OFF ] > > One possible way to speed this up a bit more would be to somehow state that if > the test A fails, then don't even bother testing test B, like in the case above. Another suggestion: To provide a short sentence with each feature stating what will be not present when something is "OFF", or even a sentence stating what the feature is about, so the user get a better picture of what is (not) being built into his tool. Probably reusing strings we already have in the makefiles. - Arnaldo