[apparmor] [patch] v4 - parser: add basic support for parallel compiles and loads

[Christian Boltz]

Hello,

Am Freitag, 11. Dezember 2015 schrieb John Johansen:
> revised v4 version of patch
> 
> * replace * with x in -j syntax to avoid shell processing problems
>   ie. -j*4 is now -jx4
> 
> * -j now requires an option, so that -jx is not potentially confused
> with possible future -x option
...
>     --max_jobs=n

You probably did s/_/-/ locally already.

>         allows setting hard cap on the number of jobs that can be
> specified by --jobs. It defaults to the number of processors in the
> system * 8. It supports the "auto" and "max" keywords, and using *n

s/*n/xn/

> --- a/parser/parser_main.c
> +++ b/parser/parser_main.c
...
>  	       "-O [n], --Optimize	Control dfa optimizations\n"
>  	       "-h [cmd], --help[=cmd]  Display this text or info about
> cmd\n" 
> +	       "-j [n], --jobs [n]	Set the number of compile threads\n" 
> +	       "--max-jobs [n]		Hard cap on --jobs. Default 8*cpus\n" 

With the parameter being required, shouldn't that be "-j n", "--jobs n" 
and "--max-jobs n"?

> +static long process_jobs_arg(const char *arg, const char *val) {
> +	char *end;
> +	long n;
> +
> +	if (!val || strcmp(val, "auto") == 0)
> +		n = JOBS_AUTO;
> +	else if (strcmp(val, "max") == 0)
> +		n = LONG_MAX;
> +	else {
> +		bool multiple = false;
> +		if (*val == 'x') {
> +			multiple = true;
> +			val++;

So you are doing pointer math to skip the first char?
That reminds me of 
http://45.media.tumblr.com/e545c444e8e28687ce9363e84017e7d5/tumblr_nz3134g9dT1rn7bzro1_500.gif
;-)

> +		}
> +		n = strtol(val, &end, 0);
> +		if (!(*val && val != end && *end == '\0')) {
> +			PERROR("%s: Invalid option %s=%s%s\n", progname, arg, 
multiple ?
> "*" : "", val); +			exit(1);

That "*" should probably be "x" to avoid confusion.

> +		}
> +		if (multiple)
> +			n = n * -1;

Just curious - why not
    n = -n
? (The result is the same.)

> +static void setup_parallel_compile(void)
...
> +	if (jobs > jobs_max) {
> +		pwarn("%s: Warning caping number of jobs to %ld * # of cpus ==

I'm not the native speaker here, but my guess would have been "capping".

> @@ -939,6 +1115,7 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
>  		}
>  	}
> 
> +
>  	retval = last_error = 0;

Is that additinal newline intentional?


Regards,

Christian Boltz
-- 
> /etc/sysconfig/powersave/cpufreq contains the line:
> # the next lover CPU frequency. Increasing this value lowers the
             ^^^^^
we should keep that one ;)
[Michael Gross in https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=183704]