Re: [TEST] make -j patch [take 2]

In message <20041112105437.T42945_at_beagle.kn.op.dlr.de>, Harti Brandt writes:
>On Fri, 12 Nov 2004, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>
>PK>In message <20041112090905.GD41844_at_ip.net.ua>, Ruslan Ermilov writes:
>PK>
>PK>>But you don't give an opportunity to control this on a sub-make
>PK>>level (that's what I ask for). 
>PK>
>PK>Why would that be of any use ?  If you run "make universe" the task
>PK>at hand is to get "make universe" to complete.  You should not care
>PK>which partcular submake starts how many jobs when, you should only
>PK>care that it works as efficient as possible.
>
>A new make is not necessarily a sub-make in the sense as started by 
>$(MAKE). A make could also be started by, for example, an awk script or 
>whatever running from make and who's task has not directly to do with the 
>top make's task. Something like:

And this will get correctly detected as long as the environment
variable gets passed to the submake.

>I'm not sure whether automatically putting the make started by portinstall 
>into the same group of makes as the top make is what one wants in such 
>cases.

Can you explain just why you think it would be beneficial to have
less control with the total load ?

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk_at_FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.