[Swan-dev] kvm-install speed up run git commands on host

Andrew Cagney andrew.cagney at gmail.com
Tue Sep 10 17:44:28 UTC 2019


On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 at 15:55, Andrew Cagney <andrew.cagney at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 at 15:38, Antony Antony <antony at phenome.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi Andrew,
>> this disagreement escalated with 8b77b407eea. I committed optional
>> variable ADD_GIT_DIRTY=true to get --dirty back. Its default is "false"
>> cae06e797508 . I thik default should the true. any one else has an
>> opinion?
>>
>> --dirty is important for me and I guess it savedi also Paul many times.
>> However, he may swing towards saving 30 seconds of his life argument and
>> agree dirty is not necessary. I am not always using kvm and 9pfs.
>> On namespace and docker the saving is one or two seconds with --dirty.
>> Those
>> seconds are likely to save many potential  mistakes without --dirty.
>>
>>
>
>
2019-08-21 06:34:27 <antony>    cagney: I agree.  your recent changes
> project  a bit different idea along with vague promise of speed: i don't
> need this feature remove it even if someone else need it.
> 2019-08-21 06:34:38 <antony>    it is in the name of speed so no
> discussion.
>
>

You posted this on IRC after I clarified my argument (in e-mail, and you
included below) pointing out that what really matters is the turn around on
a single test (and here --dirty really really hurts) and not the turn
around time of the entire test-suite.

So in this context, I interpreted "I[antony] agree" "it is in the name of
speed so no discussion.".
(at the time, most of the discussion on IRC focused on how --dirty was
nice-to-have, not a must-have.)

I gather this was a communication failure and that wasn't the intent.

Anyway, I see you've added a way to enable --dirty restoring the behaviour
you prefer.


<rant>
>> It is sad to see your commit remove --dirty feature. To me you are
>> imposing
>> your personal favorite as default overruling a what others think is good
>> principle to have.
>>
>> I am a bit surprised to see this commit in spite of explanations on the
>> IRC,
>> and what, to me, seemed was an agreement to leave it alone.
>>
>> Since it only affect few people, may be a handful, it quickly turns to
>> matter of personal taste. Not much point in arguing over it.
>>
>> Do keep in mind soon we are likely to move to namespace testing for single
>> test like "make base kvm-install kvm-test
>> KVM_TESTS=testing/pluto/basic-pluto-01" there the saving is 1-4 out 15 -
>> 30
>> seconds to run a test vs 2+ minutes now.
>> </rant>
>>
>> regards,
>> -antony
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 08:43:35AM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
>> > On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 at 16:54, Antony Antony <antony at phenome.org> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Here is an idea to speedup up building inside kvm when using
>> "kvm-install"
>> > > from what I red on IRC this would save upto 80seconds in the build.
>> Testrun
>> > > could take 4hours.
>> >
>> > It hurts when it matters and it also hurts the host (just not as bad)
>> > - when trying to turn around a test result after (possibly) tweaking a
>> > single .c file, vis:
>> >
>> >    make base kvm-install kvm-test KVM_TESTS=testing/pluto/basic-pluto-01
>> >
>> > Some time back I went through all this pain with the web code - Paul
>> > pointed out it was crippling KVM.  From memory, the critical thing was
>> > to drop -dirty (it's not exactly a must have) but I need to re-confirm
>> > this.
>> >
>> > >
>> > > I am curious if it helps Andrew.
>> > > I am trying avoid loosing features in the name saving few seconds.
>> > >
>> > > -antony
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > Swan-dev mailing list
>> > > Swan-dev at lists.libreswan.org
>> > > https://lists.libreswan.org/mailman/listinfo/swan-dev
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.libreswan.org/pipermail/swan-dev/attachments/20190910/606e5376/attachment.html>


More information about the Swan-dev mailing list