forks/apenwarr-redo
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

Rename redo-oob to redo-unlocked, to more accurately represent its use.

Browse source 
It's still undocumented.  Because you shouldn't run it by hand.  So don't!
It's dangerous!
This commit is contained in:
Avery Pennarun 2010-12-19 01:19:52 -08:00
commit db4c4fc17a
5 changed files with 22 additions and 13 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

19
builder.py
View file

@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ class BuildJob:
if vars.NO_OOB or dirty == True:
self._start_do()
else:
self._start_oob(dirty)
self._start_unlocked(dirty)
def _start_do(self):
assert(self.lock.owned)
@ -142,15 +142,18 @@ class BuildJob:
state.commit()
jwack.start_job(t, self._do_subproc, self._after)
def _start_oob(self, dirty):
def _start_unlocked(self, dirty):
# out-of-band redo of some sub-objects. This happens when we're not
# quite sure if t needs to be built or not (because some children look
# dirty, but might turn out to be clean thanks to checksums). We have
# to call redo-oob to figure it all out.
# quite sure if t needs to be built or not (because some children
# look dirty, but might turn out to be clean thanks to checksums).
# We have to call redo-unlocked to figure it all out.
#
# Note: redo-oob will handle all the updating of sf, so we don't have
# to do it here, nor call _after1.
argv = ['redo-oob', self.sf.name] + [d.name for d in dirty]
# Note: redo-unlocked will handle all the updating of sf, so we
# don't have to do it here, nor call _after1. However, we have to
# hold onto the lock because otherwise we would introduce a race
# condition; that's why it's called redo-unlocked, because it doesn't
# grab a lock.
argv = ['redo-unlocked', self.sf.name] + [d.name for d in dirty]
log('(%s)\n' % _nice(self.t))
state.commit()
def run():