From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de>
To: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@inria.fr>
Cc: cocci@inria.fr
Subject: Re: [cocci] Merging results from parallel data processing?
Date: Sun, 10 May 2026 11:38:36 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3fbe8383-ef99-4a9f-bfeb-4c8f156ee789@web.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2437833c-e02c-736c-e96f-7ded7eb263c1@inria.fr>
>> https://gitlab.inria.fr/coccinelle/coccinelle/-/blob/03a1af0a3316ddfc2b54d827b8b9627a841c85c9/tests/merge_vars.cocci
>> https://gitlab.inria.fr/coccinelle/coccinelle/-/blob/03a1af0a3316ddfc2b54d827b8b9627a841c85c9/tests/merge_vars_python.cocci
>
> No idea what is the point of these links.
You offered another bit of background information.
I find it still unclear how much these code examples can help with the desired
clarification for parallel data processing.
They are not referenced by the SmPL manual so far.
>> Do you distinguish “merging” from data concatenation in such code?
>
> No idea what this question means.
???
> You can declare variable in OCaml or Python to be the result of
> concatenating the results from the different threads.
Would an other algorithm than “concatenation” be occasionally preferred here?
> There is nothing
> more to discuss about it.
>
> It's true that the above tests are overly simplistic. Maybe
> tests/names.cocci would be a better example. But it doesn't have a python
> counterpart.
Will such information trigger further collateral evolution?
>> How will such a view evolve further according to the use case “parallel data processing”?
>
> No idea what this means.
???
>> Data users tend to prefer some information ordering, don't they?
>
> You look at the data and order it however you want.
Will additional development approaches be needed to achieve a preferred order?
> The user has no
> control over what files get handled by what tasks, so it doesn't make
> sense for Coccinelle to provide any ordering guarantees.
I came along further application requirements through the years.
Data are usually processed by the involved computation units in a known way,
aren't they?
Do you distinguish tasks from threads (or background processes) anyhow?
Regards,
Markus
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-05-10 9:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-05-09 6:15 [cocci] Merging results from parallel data processing? Markus Elfring
2026-05-09 9:00 ` Julia Lawall
2026-05-09 16:38 ` Markus Elfring
[not found] ` <e5a66d9c-5462-2f54-6abf-d2ec2cfd1d9@inria.fr>
2026-05-10 8:23 ` Markus Elfring
[not found] ` <806afe75-8e1-17d8-dc3e-c2e33f4ab64@inria.fr>
2026-05-10 8:50 ` Markus Elfring
2026-05-10 9:07 ` Julia Lawall
2026-05-10 9:38 ` Markus Elfring [this message]
2026-05-10 11:42 ` Markus Elfring
[not found] ` <6614c14-3844-9774-24c3-e891ad57e9a@inria.fr>
2026-05-10 12:45 ` Markus Elfring
[not found] ` <44e0e8aa-f4f5-be2c-3956-a15d1989eec6@inria.fr>
2026-05-10 12:55 ` Markus Elfring
2026-05-10 13:00 ` Julia Lawall
2026-05-10 13:05 ` Markus Elfring
2026-05-10 17:34 ` loopily_
2026-05-11 15:33 ` Markus Elfring
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=3fbe8383-ef99-4a9f-bfeb-4c8f156ee789@web.de \
--to=markus.elfring@web.de \
--cc=cocci@inria.fr \
--cc=julia.lawall@inria.fr \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.