A NOTE has been added to this issue. 
====================================================================== 
https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1812 
====================================================================== 
Reported By:                dwheeler
Assigned To:                ajosey
====================================================================== 
Project:                    1003.1(2008)/Issue 7
Issue ID:                   1812
Category:                   Shell and Utilities
Type:                       Enhancement Request
Severity:                   Editorial
Priority:                   normal
Status:                     Under Review
Name:                       David A. Wheeler 
Organization:               The Linux Foundation 
User Reference:              
Section:                    xargs 
Page Number:                3600-3601 
Line Number:                123252 
Interp Status:              --- 
Final Accepted Text:         
====================================================================== 
Date Submitted:             2024-02-15 20:53 UTC
Last Modified:              2024-02-16 10:28 UTC
====================================================================== 
Summary:                    Support xargs -P 0
====================================================================== 

---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 (0006659) geoffclare (manager) - 2024-02-16 10:28
 https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1812#c6659 
---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
The wording "as many processes as possible" is problematic. An
implementation could conform to this by just forking until it gets EAGAIN,
which would not be good.

Slightly better would be "an implementation-defined maximum number of
processes", but this would still allow the same poor implementation: it
would just need to document that number as being CHILD_MAX.

In Issue 8 we have sysconf(SC_NPROCESSORS_ONLN) so perhaps we should
involve that somehow, but we would need to assess whether existing
implementations would conform to the new requirement.

The best time to make a decision on this would probably be after we begin
work on Issue 9, rather than now. 

Issue History 
Date Modified    Username       Field                    Change               
====================================================================== 
2024-02-15 20:53 dwheeler       New Issue                                    
2024-02-15 20:53 dwheeler       Status                   New => Under Review 
2024-02-15 20:53 dwheeler       Assigned To               => ajosey          
2024-02-15 20:53 dwheeler       Name                      => David A. Wheeler
2024-02-15 20:53 dwheeler       Organization              => The Linux
Foundation
2024-02-15 20:53 dwheeler       Section                   => xargs           
2024-02-15 20:53 dwheeler       Page Number               => 3600-3601       
2024-02-15 20:53 dwheeler       Line Number               => 123252          
2024-02-16 10:28 geoffclare     Note Added: 0006659                          
======================================================================


  • [1003.1(2008... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
    • [1003.1... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
    • [1003.1... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
    • [1003.1... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
    • [1003.1... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
    • [1003.1... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
    • [1003.1... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group

Reply via email to