From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1754146AbdKNLJp (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Tue, 14 Nov 2017 06:09:45 -0500
Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr ([192.134.164.104]:33661
        "EHLO mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK)
        by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751887AbdKNLJg (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 14 Nov 2017 06:09:36 -0500
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.44,393,1505772000"; 
   d="scan'208";a="244562445"
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 12:09:29 +0100 (CET)
From: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>
X-X-Sender: jll@hadrien
To: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>
cc: Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org>,
        cocci@systeme.lip6.fr, Nicolas Palix <nicolas.palix@imag.fr>,
        Gilles Muller <Gilles.Muller@lip6.fr>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Michal Marek <michal.lkml@markovi.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] coccinelle: fix parallel build with
 CHECK=scripts/coccicheck
In-Reply-To: <CAK7LNAQ11bf1+=AYVsGfZ+vs-1P0fGCm-2y-qjgKi=KK7-+iSA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1711141208200.2874@hadrien>
References: <1510650290-3363-1-git-send-email-yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1711141047350.2874@hadrien> <CAK7LNAQ11bf1+=AYVsGfZ+vs-1P0fGCm-2y-qjgKi=KK7-+iSA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org



On Tue, 14 Nov 2017, Masahiro Yamada wrote:

> Hi Julia,
>
>
> 2017-11-14 18:49 GMT+09:00 Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>:
> >> +
> >> +    # If -j option is given to Make, scripts/coccicheck runs in parallel.
> >> +    # If coccinelle also runs in parallel, it fails because multiple processes
> >> +    # try to get access to the same subdirectory that stores stdout/stderr.
> >> +    # No need to parallelize coccinelle in this case - this mode takes only
> >> +    # one file input.
> >> +    NPROC=1
> >
> > Since I am also changing Coccinelle to avoid the problem, maybe it would
> > be better to just remove the explanation sentence (If coccinelle also runs
> > in parallel,...).
> >
> > julia
>
> OK.  Which lines are unneeded?
>
> Is it OK to remove all the comments, then just add "NPROC=1"?

How about keeping "# No need to parallelize coccinelle in this case - this
mode takes only one file input."?

But if you think it is obvious, it would be ok to remove it also.  Someone
can always do git blame and read the commit message if they have
questions.

julia