On 03/01/2017 04:03, Peter Xu wrote:
>> Would it work if run_tests.sh wrote a Makefile for all the tests (with
>> phony targets only), and then simply ran "make -f Makefile.tmp -jN"?
> Would this be a little bit tricky? This version 1 is kind-of overkill
> (hundreds of lines of codes), I can make
On Mon, Jan 02, 2017 at 06:07:56PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> On 01/01/2017 11:34, Peter Xu wrote:
> > run_tests.sh is getting slower. Maybe it's time to let it run faster.
> > An obvious issue is that, we were running the tests sequentially in
> > the past.
> >
> > This series provides a
On Mon, Jan 02, 2017 at 09:25:56PM +0100, Radim Krčmář wrote:
> 2017-01-02 18:07+0100, Paolo Bonzini:
> > On 01/01/2017 11:34, Peter Xu wrote:
> >> run_tests.sh is getting slower. Maybe it's time to let it run faster.
> >> An obvious issue is that, we were running the tests sequentially in
> >> the
2017-01-02 18:07+0100, Paolo Bonzini:
> On 01/01/2017 11:34, Peter Xu wrote:
>> run_tests.sh is getting slower. Maybe it's time to let it run faster.
>> An obvious issue is that, we were running the tests sequentially in
>> the past.
>>
>> This series provides another new "-j" parameter. "-j 8" me
On 01/01/2017 11:34, Peter Xu wrote:
> run_tests.sh is getting slower. Maybe it's time to let it run faster.
> An obvious issue is that, we were running the tests sequentially in
> the past.
>
> This series provides another new "-j" parameter. "-j 8" means we run
> the tests on 8 task queues. Th
run_tests.sh is getting slower. Maybe it's time to let it run faster.
An obvious issue is that, we were running the tests sequentially in
the past.
This series provides another new "-j" parameter. "-j 8" means we run
the tests on 8 task queues. That'll fasten the script a lot. A very
quick test of
