[dpdk-dev] scripts: support any legal git revisions as abi validation range

  > -----Original Message-----
> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Panu Matilainen
> Sent: Wednesday, December 2, 2015 4:51 PM
> To: dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] scripts: support any legal git revisions as
> abi validation range
> 
> In addition to git tags, support validating abi between any legal
> gitrevisions(7) syntaxes, such as "validate-abi.sh . -1 <target>"
> "validate-abi.sh master mybrach <target>" etc in addition to validating
> between tags. Makes it easier to run the validator for in-development
> work.

Hi Panu,

+1 for this.

You might also change the ABI validation section of the docs to go along
with this. Something like the patch below. If not I'll submit it
afterwards. 

Also, if someone has some bandwidth it would be good to add an option
to pass -j with an optional number to "make" in the script.

John


$ git diff
  

2015-12-03 12:14, Mcnamara, John:
> Also, if someone has some bandwidth it would be good to add an option
> to pass -j with an optional number to "make" in the script.

We can use -j without any number:
"make will not limit the number of jobs that can run simultaneously".
It is a not so bad default.
  

On 12/03/2015 02:14 PM, Mcnamara, John wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Panu Matilainen
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 2, 2015 4:51 PM
>> To: dev@dpdk.org
>> Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] scripts: support any legal git revisions as
>> abi validation range
>>
>> In addition to git tags, support validating abi between any legal
>> gitrevisions(7) syntaxes, such as "validate-abi.sh . -1 <target>"
>> "validate-abi.sh master mybrach <target>" etc in addition to validating
>> between tags. Makes it easier to run the validator for in-development
>> work.
>
> Hi Panu,
>
> +1 for this.
>
> You might also change the ABI validation section of the docs to go along
> with this. Something like the patch below. If not I'll submit it
> afterwards.

Good points, including changing the usage message to REV instead of TAG. 
I'll send an improved version based on this, thanks.

>
> Also, if someone has some bandwidth it would be good to add an option
> to pass -j with an optional number to "make" in the script.

Can do, although I'm still waiting fo my previous, semi-related 
validate-abi patches from September to be applied...

	- Panu -
  

2015-12-03 15:39, Panu Matilainen:
> > Also, if someone has some bandwidth it would be good to add an option
> > to pass -j with an optional number to "make" in the script.
> 
> Can do, although I'm still waiting fo my previous, semi-related 
> validate-abi patches from September to be applied...

Oh yes, sorry. I will apply it shortly.
  

On 12/03/2015 03:28 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 2015-12-03 12:14, Mcnamara, John:
>> Also, if someone has some bandwidth it would be good to add an option
>> to pass -j with an optional number to "make" in the script.
>
> We can use -j without any number:
> "make will not limit the number of jobs that can run simultaneously".
> It is a not so bad default.
>

Hmm, my memory associates an unlimited -j to make with sudden death by 
fork-bomb. But that was a long time ago and on a different codebase (the 
kernel maybe), with DPDK on current hardware it doesn't seem that bad at 
all.

OTOH we can also simply ask the system for a reasonable value, eg
$ /usr/bin/getconf _NPROCESSORS_ONLN

	- Panu -
  

> -----Original Message-----

> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Panu Matilainen

> Sent: Thursday, December 3, 2015 1:44 PM

> To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>; Mcnamara, John

> <john.mcnamara@intel.com>

> Cc: dev@dpdk.org

> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] scripts: support any legal git revisions

> as abi validation range

> 

> On 12/03/2015 03:28 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:

> > 2015-12-03 12:14, Mcnamara, John:

> >> Also, if someone has some bandwidth it would be good to add an option

> >> to pass -j with an optional number to "make" in the script.

> >

> > We can use -j without any number:

> > "make will not limit the number of jobs that can run simultaneously".

> > It is a not so bad default.

> >

> 

> Hmm, my memory associates an unlimited -j to make with sudden death by

> fork-bomb. But that was a long time ago and on a different codebase (the

> kernel maybe), with DPDK on current hardware it doesn't seem that bad at

> all.

> 

> OTOH we can also simply ask the system for a reasonable value, eg $

> /usr/bin/getconf _NPROCESSORS_ONLN

> 

> 	- Panu -


+1 to this.
  

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Panu Matilainen [mailto:pmatilai@redhat.com]

> Sent: Thursday, December 3, 2015 1:44 PM

> To: Thomas Monjalon; Mcnamara, John

> Cc: dev@dpdk.org

> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] scripts: support any legal git revisions

> as abi validation range

> 

> On 12/03/2015 03:28 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:

> > 2015-12-03 12:14, Mcnamara, John:

> >> Also, if someone has some bandwidth it would be good to add an option

> >> to pass -j with an optional number to "make" in the script.

> >

> > We can use -j without any number:

> > "make will not limit the number of jobs that can run simultaneously".

> > It is a not so bad default.

> >

> 

> Hmm, my memory associates an unlimited -j to make with sudden death by

> fork-bomb. But that was a long time ago and on a different codebase (the

> kernel maybe), with DPDK on current hardware it doesn't seem that bad at

> all.

> 

> OTOH we can also simply ask the system for a reasonable value, eg $

> /usr/bin/getconf _NPROCESSORS_ONLN


Hi,

To be clear, it would be nice to be able to pass "-j" or "-j n" like you can do to directly to 'make'. 

For a compile heavy codebase (no DPDK) "-j" can, as you say, choke your system but that would be up to the user to specify, or not. 

John.
--