| Message ID | 1379404753-3471-4-git-send-email-fabio.porcedda@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
Dear Fabio Porcedda, That's a minor nit, but "add a way to don't force jobs in sub-make" isn't really correct english I blieve. "add away to not force the number of jobs in sub-make" or something like that would be more appropriate. Thomas
Maybe "add a way to prevent forcing of [parallel?] jobs in sub-make"? On Sep 17, 2013 7:18 PM, "Thomas Petazzoni" < thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> wrote: > Dear Fabio Porcedda, > > That's a minor nit, but "add a way to don't force jobs in sub-make" > isn't really correct english I blieve. "add away to not force the > number of jobs in sub-make" or something like that would be more > appropriate. > > Thomas > -- > Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons > Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux > development, consulting, training and support. > http://free-electrons.com > _______________________________________________ > buildroot mailing list > buildroot@busybox.net > http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/buildroot >
Hi Thomas and Claràn, thanks for reviewing. On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 8:24 PM, Ciarán Rehill <cir.vfi@gmail.com> wrote: > Maybe "add a way to prevent forcing of [parallel?] jobs in sub-make"? > > On Sep 17, 2013 7:18 PM, "Thomas Petazzoni" > <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> wrote: >> >> Dear Fabio Porcedda, >> >> That's a minor nit, but "add a way to don't force jobs in sub-make" >> isn't really correct english I blieve. "add away to not force the >> number of jobs in sub-make" or something like that would be more >> appropriate. What about a mix of both? "add a way to prevent forcing the number of jobs in sub-make" Thanks
Op 19-sep.-2013 08:35 schreef "Fabio Porcedda" <fabio.porcedda@gmail.com> het volgende: > > Hi Thomas and Claràn, > thanks for reviewing. > > On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 8:24 PM, Ciarán Rehill <cir.vfi@gmail.com> wrote: > > Maybe "add a way to prevent forcing of [parallel?] jobs in sub-make"? > > > > On Sep 17, 2013 7:18 PM, "Thomas Petazzoni" > > <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> wrote: > >> > >> Dear Fabio Porcedda, > >> > >> That's a minor nit, but "add a way to don't force jobs in sub-make" > >> isn't really correct english I blieve. "add away to not force the > >> number of jobs in sub-make" or something like that would be more > >> appropriate. > > What about a mix of both? > "add a way to prevent forcing the number of jobs in sub-make" > In fact, we don't add a way, since the user cannot choose to force or not. So I'd suggest something like: Don't force the number of jobs... Or if you prefer: Prevent forcing... Best regards, Thomas
Hi Thomas, thanks for reviewing. On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 8:44 AM, Thomas De Schampheleire <patrickdepinguin@gmail.com> wrote: > > Op 19-sep.-2013 08:35 schreef "Fabio Porcedda" <fabio.porcedda@gmail.com> > het volgende: > > >> >> Hi Thomas and Claràn, >> thanks for reviewing. >> >> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 8:24 PM, Ciarán Rehill <cir.vfi@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Maybe "add a way to prevent forcing of [parallel?] jobs in sub-make"? >> > >> > On Sep 17, 2013 7:18 PM, "Thomas Petazzoni" >> > <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> Dear Fabio Porcedda, >> >> >> >> That's a minor nit, but "add a way to don't force jobs in sub-make" >> >> isn't really correct english I blieve. "add away to not force the >> >> number of jobs in sub-make" or something like that would be more >> >> appropriate. >> >> What about a mix of both? >> "add a way to prevent forcing the number of jobs in sub-make" >> > > In fact, we don't add a way, since the user cannot choose to force or not. IMHO the user can choose by means of the "BR2_JLEVEL" variable, if that variable contains a value buildroot will force the number of jobs, if that variable is empty buildroot will not force the number of jobs. > So I'd suggest something like: > Don't force the number of jobs... > Or if you prefer: > Prevent forcing... Thanks and best regards
Hi Fabio, On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 8:59 AM, Fabio Porcedda <fabio.porcedda@gmail.com> wrote: [..] >> In fact, we don't add a way, since the user cannot choose to force or not. > > IMHO the user can choose by means of the "BR2_JLEVEL" variable, if > that variable contains a value buildroot will force the number of > jobs, if that variable is empty buildroot will not force the number of > jobs. True, but BR2_JLEVEL was already there before your patch. What your patch fixes is the situation where BR2_JLEVEL is empty, not 0, 1, 2, 3, ... as the original code expected. So, maybe a better title is: package/Makefile.in: don't force parallel building when BR2_JLEVEL is empty Best regards, Thomas
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Thomas De Schampheleire <patrickdepinguin@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Fabio, > > On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 8:59 AM, Fabio Porcedda > <fabio.porcedda@gmail.com> wrote: > [..] >>> In fact, we don't add a way, since the user cannot choose to force or not. >> >> IMHO the user can choose by means of the "BR2_JLEVEL" variable, if >> that variable contains a value buildroot will force the number of >> jobs, if that variable is empty buildroot will not force the number of >> jobs. > > True, but BR2_JLEVEL was already there before your patch. What your > patch fixes is the situation where BR2_JLEVEL is empty, not 0, 1, 2, > 3, ... as the original code expected. So, maybe a better title is: > > package/Makefile.in: don't force parallel building when BR2_JLEVEL is empty Ok it's fine for me. Thanks and best regards
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 4:57 PM, Fabio Porcedda <fabio.porcedda@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Thomas De Schampheleire > <patrickdepinguin@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi Fabio, >> >> On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 8:59 AM, Fabio Porcedda >> <fabio.porcedda@gmail.com> wrote: >> [..] >>>> In fact, we don't add a way, since the user cannot choose to force or not. >>> >>> IMHO the user can choose by means of the "BR2_JLEVEL" variable, if >>> that variable contains a value buildroot will force the number of >>> jobs, if that variable is empty buildroot will not force the number of >>> jobs. >> >> True, but BR2_JLEVEL was already there before your patch. What your >> patch fixes is the situation where BR2_JLEVEL is empty, not 0, 1, 2, >> 3, ... as the original code expected. So, maybe a better title is: >> >> package/Makefile.in: don't force parallel building when BR2_JLEVEL is empty > > Ok it's fine for me. Well the line it's too long (75 character), i will use: package/Makefile.in: don't force jobs when BR2_JLEVEL is empty Best regards
diff --git a/package/Makefile.in b/package/Makefile.in index 170ad78..d406901 100644 --- a/package/Makefile.in +++ b/package/Makefile.in @@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ PARALLEL_JOBS:=$(BR2_JLEVEL) endif MAKE1:=$(HOSTMAKE) -j1 -MAKE:=$(HOSTMAKE) -j$(PARALLEL_JOBS) +MAKE:=$(HOSTMAKE) $(if $(PARALLEL_JOBS),-j$(PARALLEL_JOBS)) # Compute GNU_TARGET_NAME GNU_TARGET_NAME=$(ARCH)-buildroot-$(TARGET_OS)-$(LIBC)$(ABI)