Skip to content

fix(makefile): Improve performance of make lint#1059

Open
olivergondza wants to merge 1 commit intoredhat-developer:masterfrom
olivergondza:speedup-lint
Open

fix(makefile): Improve performance of make lint#1059
olivergondza wants to merge 1 commit intoredhat-developer:masterfrom
olivergondza:speedup-lint

Conversation

@olivergondza
Copy link
Collaborator

What type of PR is this?

Same change now done in argo-cd: argoproj/argo-cd#26025

Uncomment only one /kind line, and delete the rest.
For example, > /kind bug would simply become: /kind bug

/kind bug
/kind cleanup
/kind failing-test
/kind enhancement
/kind documentation
/kind code-refactoring

What does this PR do / why we need it:

lint is sped up from 46s to 15s

Have you updated the necessary documentation?

  • [no] Documentation update is required by this PR.
  • [n/a] Documentation has been updated.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Fixes #?

Test acceptance criteria:

  • Unit Test
  • E2E Test

How to test changes / Special notes to the reviewer:

Signed-off-by: Oliver Gondža <ogondza@gmail.com>
@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the kind/enhancement New feature or request label Jan 21, 2026
@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot requested review from keithchong and wtam2018 January 21, 2026 11:24
@openshift-ci
Copy link

openshift-ci bot commented Jan 21, 2026

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by:
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign wtam2018 for approval. For more information see the Code Review Process.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Details Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@jgwest
Copy link
Member

jgwest commented Jan 23, 2026

/retest

@olivergondza
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Can we move on with this? It was merged in the upstream operator already.

Copy link
Contributor

@keithchong keithchong left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It looks like removing GOMAXPROCS is what we should do, especially for later versions of Go (we're using 1.25), and allow the runtime to set the value, which is more container aware. Also, Oliver's change has been merged upstream.

https://go.dev/blog/container-aware-gomaxprocs

@keithchong keithchong requested a review from svghadi February 6, 2026 19:45
@keithchong
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @svghadi , I don't have write access to this repo - adding you to review and approve.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

kind/enhancement New feature or request

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants