2017-01-03 10:45+0800, Peter Xu: > On Mon, Jan 02, 2017 at 09:18:24PM +0100, Radim Krčmář wrote: >> 2017-01-01 18:34+0800, Peter Xu: >> > diff --git a/scripts/functions.bash b/scripts/functions.bash >> Couldn't the queue be much simpler ... >> >> > + else >> > + RUNTIME_log_file=$ut_default_log_file >> > + "$@" >> > + fi >> > } >> > >> > function for_each_unittest() >> > @@ -51,5 +62,10 @@ function for_each_unittest() >> > fi >> > done >> >> ... like this: >> >> while [ "`jobs | wc -l`" -gt $ut_run_queues ]; do (Uh, should be -ge, and `wc -l` always has reasonable output, so quotes are not necessary. Quotes would make more sense around the variable.) >> wait > > I suppose you mean "wait -n" here? Yes, sorry. > And also a "if" should suffice > here, though a "while" won't hurt as well. I agree. (I was lazy to read the manual to confirm, hence the first mistake as well. I just remembered that bash wait has this weird behavior and assumed that the wait in task_enqueue is already doing that ...) >> done >> run_task "$cmd" "$testname" "$groups" "$smp" "$kernel" "$opts" "$arch" "$check" "$accel" "$timeout" & > > I think this might work, however it has assumption that these $cmd > tasks are the only jobs that is running in the background. Yes, but run_task is already in a sub shell, so its jobs don't matter and we can easily guarantee that for_each_unit_test won't spawn more. > I didn't notice the "-n" parameter for "wait", otherwise I won't > bother using SIGUSR1 at all. :) (Btw. why couldn't you use SIGCHLD?) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
