From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, FROM_EXCESS_BASE64,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD4391F97E for ; Fri, 5 Oct 2018 18:50:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728510AbeJFBuz (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Oct 2018 21:50:55 -0400 Received: from mail-wr1-f41.google.com ([209.85.221.41]:45133 "EHLO mail-wr1-f41.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728260AbeJFBuy (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Oct 2018 21:50:54 -0400 Received: by mail-wr1-f41.google.com with SMTP id q5-v6so14524865wrw.12 for ; Fri, 05 Oct 2018 11:50:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=YQNNCX+scFkwAXePIfeAMwmHWZ6Y/GQSSGU7PODXQ1U=; b=Y1dMu/MW4zRY9XEUmIztBRvOtWaomInzlgKsk3bnSXBpOm1lGE3ac7dOa3X/vuGil9 7/VOSb9nIVmKsjByJ+lvHILJ0W+dQWegjcKEirewQxlrWHMSeELWc5KAxR7didpkUhgv c37XxRkVP6ThXYsjN6KdkJ09X1r/yyFa5Q0rz6SLEPhTdgaNiQvWpjRPv7BUeNP1E/3Z D5xIK+9GWsP6+nlfhhk+sRTzJG5glx5ELgulF4Y4HPHqQGTesHiriqpEgGRDnWgMim/N witjGUYAKZ/owbJgYN1u7sc9FJzd6RcP47xXTReooYS+7uRSVTml0rx5ecIynlkVxffW J8Eg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=YQNNCX+scFkwAXePIfeAMwmHWZ6Y/GQSSGU7PODXQ1U=; b=kqQA40bvcWAcuypWsbaMEZG3f8e/mQQoOsofLERAbZ4KaUtuDHO7m6fybW2uXmtsJm EbzYrwcFyB9xfCIDA9SXQharJLGEvP7O9+Fa0U+5434iGOc5PG9PzxhYNS6qYuPyV6jM DqgJR93H5zwbzWpClAUuZ9zHvYvV6osyEiedXQVT57Xj/6Uw+UXVqj4Cd6yDPlWtvFzE 7VhSkDPbFOLydoglmpXw4tdBrL07YkwfgQjL8zE7Hekj0W2BIwMJFpB8u4OJTxKA/sEr 9ah7sU8ON6KoNwByLGV9PfL9Qki9kXIH42/t12r1h3kWFncmrSf87ySi/51oZAzZwnt6 HFPA== X-Gm-Message-State: ABuFfoj80EHtHaxowaQ62sbpuSdbh93RzxV9Ckux5U4IKk/XVAictYfx c+LgXwUK8/65RCB+eBw2EQk= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACcGV63mn9RQbGYMReTMmWrxb3xdgJ/h2w8cMAw2gfjWWPTF22lFikfDDDQVD/sR34r0LIvr4uo9IQ== X-Received: by 2002:adf:ab13:: with SMTP id q19-v6mr8875049wrc.62.1538765453442; Fri, 05 Oct 2018 11:50:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (x4d0c6f69.dyn.telefonica.de. [77.12.111.105]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id k93-v6sm11800802wrc.89.2018.10.05.11.50.51 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 05 Oct 2018 11:50:52 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 20:50:50 +0200 From: SZEDER =?utf-8?B?R8OhYm9y?= To: Jeff King Cc: "Keller, Jacob E" , Jacob Keller , Git mailing list Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] coccicheck: process every source file at once Message-ID: <20181005185050.GW23446@localhost> References: <20181002200710.15721-1-jacob.e.keller@intel.com> <20181005124048.GT23446@localhost> <20181005162517.GB11254@sigill.intra.peff.net> <02874ECE860811409154E81DA85FBB5884CCBED2@ORSMSX115.amr.corp.intel.com> <20181005165901.GE11254@sigill.intra.peff.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20181005165901.GE11254@sigill.intra.peff.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 12:59:01PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 04:53:35PM +0000, Keller, Jacob E wrote: > > > > Are we OK with saying 1.3-1.8GB is necessary to run coccicheck? That > > > doesn't feel like an exorbitant request for a developer-only tool these > > > days, but I have noticed some people on the list tend to have lousier > > > machines than I do. ;) > > > > > > -Peff > > > > It's probably not worth trying to make this more complicated and scale > > up how many files we do at once based on the amount of available > > memory on the system... > > Yeah, that sounds too complicated. At most I'd give a Makefile knob to > say "spatch in batches of $(N)". But I'd prefer to avoid even that > complexity if we can. But perhaps one more if-else, e.g.: if test -n "$(COCCICHECK_ALL_AT_ONCE)"; then \ else fi would be an acceptable compromise? Dunno.