From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751582AbcFUVxw (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Jun 2016 17:53:52 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:40596 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751427AbcFUVxv (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Jun 2016 17:53:51 -0400 Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 23:39:06 +0200 From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" To: Julia Lawall Cc: "Luis R. Rodriguez" , "Nicolas Palix (LIG)" , Gilles.Muller@lip6.fr, mmarek@suse.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, markivx@codeaurora.org, stephen.boyd@linaro.org, zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com, broonie@kernel.org, ming.lei@canonical.com, tiwai@suse.de, johannes@sipsolutions.net, chunkeey@googlemail.com, hauke@hauke-m.de, jwboyer@fedoraproject.org, dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com, dwmw2@infradead.org, jslaby@suse.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, deepa.kernel@gmail.com, cocci@systeme.lip6.fr Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/8] coccicheck: enable parmap support Message-ID: <20160621213906.GC25646@wotan.suse.de> References: <1466536893-23355-1-git-send-email-mcgrof@kernel.org> <1466536893-23355-4-git-send-email-mcgrof@kernel.org> <20160621203958.GU25646@wotan.suse.de> <20160621212839.GZ25646@wotan.suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: 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 On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 11:32:11PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: > > > On Tue, 21 Jun 2016, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > > 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? > > There are already too many changes in this patch series. > > Also, I don't know what the 0-day people would find convenient. I'd really prefer to not deal with supporting DEBUG_FILE for non-parmap case due to the way parallelism is supported there, it uses wait(1) to wait on the shell, and for spawning this nasty thing: eval "$@ --max $NPROC --index $i &" Specially since we are likely to be able to deprecate this sooner rather than later I see little point in adding DEBUG_FILE into this mess. Luis