On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 08:00:28PM +0100, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> Hi Willy!
>
> On 2025-01-22 19:52:06+0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 07:41:48PM +0100, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> > > @@ -173,7 +170,7 @@ test_arch() {
> > > exit 1
> > > esac
> > > printf '%-15s' "$arch:"
> > > - swallow_output "${MAKE[@]}" CFLAGS_EXTRA="$CFLAGS_EXTRA" "$test_target" V=1
> > > + swallow_output "${MAKE[@]}" CFLAGS_EXTRA="$CFLAGS_EXTRA" defconfig "$test_target" V=1
> >
> > Just a question, are you certain that dependencies between $test_target
> > and defconfig are always properly handled ? I'm asking because "make -j"
> > is something valid, and we wouldn't want defconfig to run in parallel
> > with test_target.
>
> "make -j" is not only valid but used by run-tests.sh always.
> The sequencing is explicitly enforced in patch 4.
I learned something today, I didn't know about order-only rules.
> > For real sequencing (and making sure targets run in the
> > correct order), I normally prefer to run them one at a time. Here you could
> > simply prepend the defconfig line before the original one and get these
> > guarantees (and also make them explicit). That's also less edit when
> > copy-pasting from the terminal to the shell when trying to debug.
>
> Sounds fine to me, too.
> That would remove the need for patch 4, but I'd like to keep it anyways.
Agreed!
Willy
