[U-Boot] MAKEALL

[Albert ARIBAUD <albert.u.boot@aribaud.net>]

Hi Simon,

On Wed, 8 Jan 2014 09:54:47 -0700, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote:

> Hi York,
> 
> 
> On 4 January 2014 02:21, Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de> wrote:
> 
> > Dear York,
> >
> > In message <52C7424A.4090205@freescale.com> you wrote:
> > >
> > > I have some troubles to run MAKEALL with BUILD_NBUILDS. If I set
> > BUILD_NBUILDS
> > > to 2 or greater, there is a good chance the total number of targets is
> > not an
> > > integral multiple of BUILD_NBUILDS. It has two undesired results.
> > >
> > > 1. The status report has wrong number of passed builds.
> > > 2. This script throws out SIGTERM.
> > >
> > > The second one is troubling me. I am using Jenkins to monitor and build
> > > automatically. I can trap the SIGTERM on some hosts but not all of them.
> > >
> > > Can you shed some light on this?
> >
> > I'm sorry, but I am not familiar with this BUILD_NBUILDS code at all.
> > It was added by Andy Fleming, so maybe he can help.
> >
> > Andy?
> >
> 
> It might also be worth looking at tools/buildman, which automatically
> allocates one build thread per CPU.

Jumping in late, but my question is incidental and not urgent anyway.

Would using buildman make the multiple build / multiple CPU code in
MAKEALL useless? I'm wondering whether we could apply the Unix
philosophy here (1), let buildman alone deal with handling parallel
builds, and remove code from MAKEALL.

(1) not the "unix is user-friendly, it's just picky about who its
friends are" one; the "do one thing well" one.

> Regards,
> Simon

Amicalement,
-- 
Albert.