> I think it should at least follow the same convention as XZ: T with no
> numbers mean autodetection (its okay if 0 means that too). This seems to
> silently change XZ behavior too which is not okay.
I'm going to update the documentation of my change. Yes, it was intentional to
sync behavior of `T0` and `T`, as `zstd` and `xz` use `-T0` in order to
autodetect number of threads.
> We'll need some sort of resource manager (no matter how crude) in rpm sooner
> than later to handle this sort of stuff, but in the meanwhile I think a first
> step towards sanity could be axing the crazily complicated logic from XZ and
> simply limit threading to 64bit platforms.
Works for me.
> And with that, it should be possible to refactor this to use common
> thread-number autodetection code between xzstd and the XZ case.
I would like to. Currently, `xz` uses the memory limit. That functionality is
missing for `zstd`, but as said, it does not work for concurrent creation of
`rpm` files.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1324#issuecomment-670848352___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
