Stefan Beller <sbel...@google.com> writes: >> One more thing, as I didn't notice that you kept repeating "thread" >> pool API. > > Yeah I intended to use both threads and processes for the heavy submodule > operations.
OK. I somehow had an impression that it might be more tricky than it is worth to spawn/run_command out of a thread/run_async, but if it makes it easier and more generic to correctly arrange the thread-pool API to allow the per-thread functions to run_command(), I wouldn't object to that approach at all. Then for-each-parallel would truly become a trivial application of that API. Your per-thread function happens to be a one that prepares appropriate "struct child_process" and calls run_command() to interact with that single child, receiving its output and culling it when it is done. >> ... if >> you really want to go the "thread" route, the first thing to try >> would be to see if a few places we already use threads for >> parallelism (namely, "grep", "pack-objects", "preload-index" and >> "index-pack") can be factored out and model your new API around the >> commonality among them. And obviously, doing your pool API around threads will allow you to throw future per-thread function that do not involve run_command() at all at your API, and it will make it easy to adapt the current threaded parts of the system to the API. Perfect. ;-) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
