On Thu, 2017-12-07 at 05:30 -0500, Bruce Ashfield wrote: > > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Burton, Ross <[email protected]> > wrote: > > The amended commit has mismatching commit log and patch (target > > elfutils is in the commit log but not the patch), and doesn't > > mention installing target elfutils if they want it. > > > > > I fixed up the commit log on that patch to match the actual code. > > As it turns out, I don't see the need to install target elfutils > anymore, so I didn't > include anything about that in the log. > > We still have some lttng build issues with the -dev kernel (due to > objtool being > required and the openssl headers required for making the scripts), > and those > are being worked on separately. Having this updated linux-yocto-dev > recipe > in the tree gets the kernel building and booting and enables us to > work through > the other issues more quickly (not to meention, I've already pushed > 4.15-rc2 to > the actual kernel tree, so you get that from a build regardless). > With Regards to the objtool, I was also seeing and issue with kernel- devsrc, and objtool/.debug showing up in the devsrc packages-split. I am trying to get a solid set of steps that reproduces this. The strange thing was I did not see the .debug files in the kernel build area or even in the kernel-devsrc/image directory but it was strangely showed up in packages-split and failed a QA check.
Sau! > Cheers, > > Bruc > > > > > Ross > > > > On 4 December 2017 at 17:43, Bruce Ashfield <bruce.ashfield@windriv > > er.com> wrote: > > > On 2017-12-04 12:39 PM, Richard Purdie wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2017-12-04 at 12:24 -0500, Bruce Ashfield wrote: > > > > > On 2017-12-04 11:38 AM, Khem Raj wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 7:39 AM, Bruce Ashfield > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Outside of the normal patch refreshes and boot issues, > > > > > > > there are > > > > > > > new > > > > > > > build time tools within the kernel that required the > > > > > > > following > > > > > > > dependencies: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For ORC_UNWINDER support in x86-64: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > DEPENDS += "${@bb.utils.contains('ARCH', 'x86', > > > > > > > 'elfutils- > > > > > > > native elfutils', '', d)}" > > > > > > > > > > > > > do we need both target and host elfutils > > > > > > > > > > > Yup. There were references to both. Some had to run for > > > > > hostcc > > > > > and others in the target arch. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just for reference this is pretty bad for performance as it > > > > delays the > > > > kernel compile until some substantial parts of userspace build. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On a second look, I can likely turn off the target part, if > > > someone > > > wants it, they can always install the package (or it could be a > > > rdepends). > > > > > > I'll amend the commit and leave it on that branch with just the > > > DEPENDS on the -native version. > > > > > > > Is ORC_UNWINDER useful and commonly used? > > > > > > > > > > The upstream kernel commit turned it on by default, I turned it > > > off in > > > the kernel-cache, but I wanted to make sure the dependency was > > > in place. > > > > > > The commit series from Josh Poimboeuf all lead to it being on as > > > the default choice (even with a slight overhead). > > > > > > Bruce > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > Richard > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Openembedded-core mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core > > > > > > -- > > _______________________________________________ > > Openembedded-core mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core > > > > > -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
