Re: Adjusting jobserver size (was: Re: No follow up on patches to support newer glibc ?)

I have added an updated patch to bug #51200 and hope that you will reconsider adding the functionality into next release. It is true that SIGUSR is already used for debug toggling, but the behavior of SIGUSR1 isn't changed to decreasing number of jobs until a SIGUSR2 signal is received. So make

Re: Adjusting jobserver size (was: Re: No follow up on patches to support newer glibc ?)

Thanks for your feedback! > On the other hand, it's a complex change (I'm not convinced that your > implementation is complete: for example, it's not immediately clear to > me how the decrement handles the "free token" concept of the job server > implementation... The variable decrease_jobs is

Adjusting jobserver size (was: Re: No follow up on patches to support newer glibc ?)

On Thu, 2018-04-05 at 00:26 +0200, Henrik Carlqvist wrote: > On Wed, 04 Apr 2018 15:42:51 -0400 > Paul Smith wrote: > > It does look like we need to make a new release soon. > > If so, is there anything I can do to get the functionality of my > contributed patch in bug #51200

Re: No follow up on patches to support newer glibc ?

On Wed, 04 Apr 2018 15:42:51 -0400 Paul Smith wrote: > It does look like we need to make a new release soon. If so, is there anything I can do to get the functionality of my contributed patch in bug #51200 into the upcoming new release? Best regards Henrik

Re: No follow up on patches to support newer glibc ?

On 04/04/18 03:42 PM, Paul Smith wrote: On Wed, 2018-04-04 at 13:03 -0400, Dennis Clarke wrote: After all the vibrant discussion I was at least expecting a reply that says "okay .. so that works" or perhaps a "ver 4.2.2 patches?" or something. Well, we thought it would work and it did work,

Re: No follow up on patches to support newer glibc ?

On Wed, 2018-04-04 at 13:03 -0400, Dennis Clarke wrote: > After all the vibrant discussion I was at least expecting a reply that > says "okay .. so that works" or perhaps a "ver 4.2.2 patches?" or > something. Well, we thought it would work and it did work, and those fixes are in the codebase...

No follow up on patches to support newer glibc ?

After all the vibrant discussion I was at least expecting a reply that says "okay .. so that works" or perhaps a "ver 4.2.2 patches?" or something. What bothers me is that these patches are only needed on a i686 system thus far. Dennis