Re: RFA [PATCH] * lock-and-run.sh: Check for process existence rather than timeout.

On 10/21/19 7:12 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: On Oct 21, 2019, Jason Merrill wrote: On Sat, Oct 19, 2019 at 12:08 AM Alexandre Oliva wrote: We might also wish to use different lock-breaking logic for that case, too, e.g. checking that the timestamp of the dir didn't change by comparing `ls -

Re: RFA [PATCH] * lock-and-run.sh: Check for process existence rather than timeout.

On Oct 21, 2019, Jason Merrill wrote: > On Sat, Oct 19, 2019 at 12:08 AM Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> We might also wish to use different lock-breaking logic for that case, >> too, e.g. checking that the timestamp of the dir didn't change by >> comparing `ls -ld $lockdir` with what we got 30 secon

Re: RFA [PATCH] * lock-and-run.sh: Check for process existence rather than timeout.

On 10/21/19 11:35 AM, Jason Merrill wrote: On Sat, Oct 19, 2019 at 12:08 AM Alexandre Oliva > wrote: Hello, Jason, On Oct 14, 2019, Jason Merrill mailto:ja...@redhat.com>> wrote: > Alex, you had a lot of helpful comments when I first wrote this, any thoug

Re: RFA [PATCH] * lock-and-run.sh: Check for process existence rather than timeout.

Hello, Jason, On Oct 14, 2019, Jason Merrill wrote: > Alex, you had a lot of helpful comments when I first wrote this, any thoughts > on this revision? I think the check of the pid file could be made slightly simpler and cheaper if we created it using: echo $$ > $lockdir/pidT && mv $lockdir

RFA [PATCH] * lock-and-run.sh: Check for process existence rather than timeout.

Matthias Klose noted that on less powerful targets, a link might take more than 5 minutes; he mentions a figure of 3 hours for an LTO link. So this patch changes the timeout to a check for whether the locking process still exists. Alex, you had a lot of helpful comments when I first wrote this, a