On Mon, Aug 2, 2021 at 6:54 AM Jon Mason <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 1, 2021 at 9:03 PM Christopher Clark > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Sun, Aug 1, 2021 at 8:36 AM Jon Mason <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > I'm building xen-image-minimal for gem5-arm64 machine (in the meta-arm > > > layer) and the recent patch to add qemuarm64 support is breaking my > > > builds. The patch in question is: > > > > > > 19347a7c4e4c qemuboot, xen-image-minimal: enable runqemu for qemuarm64 > > > Xen images > > > > > > You can see an example of the breakage here: > > > https://gitlab.com/jonmason00/meta-arm/-/jobs/1468242014 > > > > Hi Jon > > > > I'm sorry that my patch caused trouble and thanks for sending your > > report. I now understand the issue. > > It happens, and I appreciate your rapid response (on a Sunday!). This > is the reason why we have our nightly Gitlab CI runs :) > > > > > > The problematic line is > > > diff --git a/recipes-extended/images/xen-image-minimal.bb > > > b/recipes-extended/images/xen-image-minimal.bb > > > index 6733801cca5f..ca6d26836c42 100644 > > > --- a/recipes-extended/images/xen-image-minimal.bb > > > +++ b/recipes-extended/images/xen-image-minimal.bb > > > @@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ XEN_PCIBACK_MODULE_x86-64 = "kernel-module-xen-pciback" > > > > > > LICENSE = "MIT" > > > > > > -inherit core-image > > > +inherit core-image qemuboot-xen-defaults qemuboot-xen-dtb > > > > > > Reverting this line "fixes" my problem. > > > > Would you be able to try applying this patch instead? I believe it > > will resolve the issue. > > > > diff --git a/classes/qemuboot-xen-dtb.bbclass > > b/classes/qemuboot-xen-dtb.bbclass > > index 08f9b02..2d37e91 100644 > > --- a/classes/qemuboot-xen-dtb.bbclass > > +++ b/classes/qemuboot-xen-dtb.bbclass > > @@ -176,7 +176,7 @@ do_write_xen_qemuboot_dtb() { > > # Not all architectures qemuboot with a device tree binary, so check > > # to see if one is needed. This allows this bbclass file to be used > > # in the same image recipe for multiple architectures. > > - if [ -n "${QB_DTB}" ] ; then > > + if [ -n "${QB_DTB}" ] && [ -n "${QB_SYSTEM_NAME}" ] ; then > > generate_xen_qemuboot_dtb > > fi > > } > > This does indeed allow it to compile without issue. Please push this > as soon as possible.
Excellent, thanks! > > > > > > It seems odd to add qemu > > > stuff for machines that don't need it. Is it right to add qemu stuff > > > to an image.bb? > > > > I believe that it is reasonable to do so as it enables support for > > testing the image (or images derived from it) even if the intended > > final target is non-qemu hardware. I have been working on using this > > qemu support to enable the OpenEmbedded QA framework to launch a Xen > > image and execute standard and Xen-specific OEQA test cases within it, > > eg. via: bitbake -c testimage xen-image-minimal > > It should be a valuable capability for images that are built even for > > non-qemu machine targets. You can also see within this layer that the > > xvisor image recipe similarly chooses to include qemu-specific items. > > Poor wording on my part. I'm not saying QEMU has no value in testing, > I was trying to say that I don't see similar things in other layers > that use qemu (lazily looking at poky as my example). This could very > well be the right way of doing it, and I'm just ignorant of it. I think the default OE qemu settings are OK for most images so no adjustments are needed, but those that include a hypervisor, or at least a type-1 hypervisor, may require some tuning of the settings to enable a successful boot. It gets even more complicated for Xen since the x86 and Arm platform boot configurations are currently rather different. > All of that being said, I am interested in what you are doing here. I > think running CI on qemu xen arm64 as part of our development process > could be very beneficial. In our current setup, we're running > testimage on qemu machines. Do you have anything similar planned for > this machine? I've recently added recipes for the Xen Test Framework to meta-virtualization as preparation towards enabling that to run in CI with OEQA (ie. testimage). XTF is currently only for x86 platforms but I am aware of development efforts to enable running XTF on Arm too, so it should be useful to you when that lands. I have been working on the integration needed for XTF to run as an OEQA test case and I do have a working early version, but doing that work has surfaced some challenges with the Xen toolstack that I need to resolve first, so that's my current focus. I'm very happy to hear that you're already running CI on the Xen recipes and image - please do report any issues that you find. best, Christopher > > Thanks, > Jon > > > > > thanks, > > > > Christopher
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#6712): https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/meta-virtualization/message/6712 Mute This Topic: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/mt/84591911/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/meta-virtualization/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
