From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS3215 2.6.0.0/16 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-11.1 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_MED, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from out1.vger.email (out1.vger.email [IPv6:2620:137:e000::1:20]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C70321F51E for ; Thu, 29 Sep 2022 20:52:57 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: dcvr.yhbt.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="ZW1JhzMA"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229772AbiI2UwZ (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Sep 2022 16:52:25 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:41960 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229763AbiI2UwW (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Sep 2022 16:52:22 -0400 Received: from mail-yb1-xb2f.google.com (mail-yb1-xb2f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b2f]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 67A2A177377 for ; Thu, 29 Sep 2022 13:52:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-yb1-xb2f.google.com with SMTP id 203so3000377ybc.10 for ; Thu, 29 Sep 2022 13:52:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date; bh=fBblR2NuvxYP786tnkxG4oDd0YissiE4uXMobDEVOy0=; b=ZW1JhzMA2ssHC0PlobYQJdFEZbOVGwqIUX6oSO0jMD/lDRoJSeASlFtkQYOmmSlouZ Vz5PWX3mYcvayUwbp42uav81p+MbNQZkL6ru+SG5haFwg6Fjftg02dQ/xJGNTN5knaoO OsFaGKwfqvLdBTsAE8T3UzFs/lSzwGpvpYU0q/hTYhKeF60/c+2ffkeczyPi/ioCavYw hvDgCL/OE3ZnAQNFai2trhHUi1Xn/BZo8qlSesA23BK8eexKqnomzajcOX9UBnlyfGSz k4vdjHAnywA7QRV40HedfxMs2xew1O3bPkEfHsu78a/78guPLmoikRXNqGO4XeXuB2r9 /51w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date; bh=fBblR2NuvxYP786tnkxG4oDd0YissiE4uXMobDEVOy0=; b=VBqr07i5G+J7R6XPUqhHIt3mAHTZ0iUivS7T2BP8ncL63e37Py38IAaiXIk2OXXJub gruKxAMceBus7wlcw3y8Qez1GeQYSdqGxSn23JkXpAq4j3VfGi3r0ltG3a4Kj4W06JVJ sz7YQUKTONT9xuMkgtG8ZBmyqBuO0j3virvXEd24+DbWBUlCyp4VVPZ0YEp22gwcT9jA AeWoj2QXt2EwasPG8qPGxO+OOipp7ZFAU/SH7cWOc+999L0czMn85wufOlRiVPWUunJL CR4VwgOnnwZ3A88n6acOd7KhnhqyFmVUQ2kFvr4Jt+/1jZdeJdRnSDQ+1DyEaU9foHtX wzJg== X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf0v+wI/pqCgPzmUqbtFUtKy63gx23g/r8LcYwtunWonJb58k8Ik mCS9XKmn/kYUPT8wfHNqeJTdqOjMRs6dOhx7izanDH5eKbo= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM6c3paDWKou1rP8uK9ssjWpAZFIt/j52Kk6oS/oXNI+CXU95xPYfIpMq/ZIaTU/c3eImKrvQkHMkiumHJNExuQ= X-Received: by 2002:a25:a42a:0:b0:6a9:82d4:147 with SMTP id f39-20020a25a42a000000b006a982d40147mr5364055ybi.417.1664484740575; Thu, 29 Sep 2022 13:52:20 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20220922232947.631309-1-calvinwan@google.com> <20220922232947.631309-2-calvinwan@google.com> <220927.86ill9yymv.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com> <220927.86fsgcy5j9.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com> <220928.86bkr0xd9w.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <220928.86bkr0xd9w.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com> From: Calvin Wan Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2022 13:52:09 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] run-command: add pipe_output to run_processes_parallel To: =?UTF-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsCBCamFybWFzb24=?= Cc: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org, emilyshaffer@google.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org > You mean the internal "struct parallel_processes"? How do you get the > parameter there, presumably by passing it to > run_processes_parallel{,_tr2}() as a new parameter? Yea I added it as a new parameter... > The reason for why the "ungroup" wasn't added as a parameter at the time > was to avoid the churn of changing every single caller of the API. > > But it should really be a "parameter", and doing it via a struct means > adding such parameters doesn't need to change every single caller. > > Then we have outstanding WIP patches for the hook.[ch] API which needed > to add two other parameters... > > So I think first ripping off the band-aid of making it painless to > extend the interface is the right thing to do, unless I've missed some > way of doing it that you've just discovered... In that case my patch does depend on yours for resubmission, so it sounds like if I want to quickly resubmit then I should cherry-pick the relevant commits from your WIP branch.