On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 4:15 PM Cal Sullivan <[email protected]> wrote:
> Looking at the test and the output, its expecting /dev/sda3 to be mounted > as /media and /dev/sda4 to be mounted as /mnt. With this test result, there > is no /media, and instead /dev/sda3 is mounted to /mnt. > > That seems odd to me unless that partition either wasn't created or went > entirely undetected. > > I'll take a closer look, I think there's more going on here. > Udev trigger sometimes get ignored have seem that in past > > > --- > Cal > > On 02/05/2018 03:34 PM, Burton, Ross wrote: > > This is causing the qemu boot wic test to fail in oe-selftest: > > 2018-02-05 15:08:41,786 - oe-selftest - INFO - FAIL [64.639s]: test_qemu > (wic.Wic) > 2018-02-05 15:08:41,786 - oe-selftest - INFO - > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 2018-02-05 15:08:41,786 - oe-selftest - INFO - Traceback (most recent call > last): > File > "/home/pokybuild/yocto-autobuilder/yocto-worker/nightly-oe-selftest/build/meta/lib/oeqa/core/decorator/__init__.py", > line 32, in wrapped_f > return func(*args, **kwargs) > File > "/home/pokybuild/yocto-autobuilder/yocto-worker/nightly-oe-selftest/build/meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/cases/wic.py", > line 58, in wrapped_f > return func(*args, **kwargs) > File > "/home/pokybuild/yocto-autobuilder/yocto-worker/nightly-oe-selftest/build/meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/cases/wic.py", > line 637, in test_qemu > self.assertEqual(output, '/dev/root /\r\n/dev/sda1 /boot\r\n/dev/sda3 > /mnt') > AssertionError: '/dev/root /\r\n/dev/sda1 /boot\r\n/dev/sda3 > /media\r\n/dev/sda4 /mnt' != '/dev/root /\r\n/dev/sda1 /boot\r\n/dev/sda3 > /mnt' > /dev/root / > /dev/sda1 /boot > - /dev/sda3 /media > - /dev/sda4 /mnt? ^ > + /dev/sda3 /mnt? ^ > > Presumably this is the initramfs mounting more stuff automatically? I > don't have an opinion right now as to whether this is a problem with the > initramfs or the test case being too strict... > > Ross > > > On 1 February 2018 at 14:03, Burton, Ross <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Sorry, missed this. I'll pull it into MUT and throw it at the >> autobuilder... >> >> Ross >> >> On 31 January 2018 at 22:53, Cal Sullivan < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Ping. >>> >>> --- >>> Cal >>> >>> >>> On 01/09/2018 05:00 PM, Cal Sullivan wrote: >>> >>>> Anything wrong with this? Haven't seen it hit any mut branches. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Cal >>>> >>>> On 12/19/2017 02:12 PM, California Sullivan wrote: >>>> >>>>> initramfs-framework is more modular and expandable. This change was >>>>> proposed in commit 28fc6ba761ed4a47efa7c43e7f7dff5e2fe72b5e >>>>> "core-image-minimal-initramfs: use initramfs-framework by default" but >>>>> reverted due to the selftests >>>>> runqemu.RunqemuTests.test_boot_machine_iso >>>>> and runqemu.RunqemuTests.test_boot_deploy_hddimg failing. Since then, >>>>> the kinks have been worked out, and missing functionality that had been >>>>> missed (non-EFI installation module) has been added. >>>>> >>>>> Since the PACKAGE_INSTALL variable was getting so long with all these >>>>> individual modules getting added, I also introduced a new >>>>> INITRAMFS_SCRIPTS variable to the core-image-minimal-initramfs recipe. >>>>> This variable makes the recipe look much cleaner, and also allows >>>>> easier >>>>> replacement or additions to the scripts. >>>>> >>>>> Fixes [YOCTO #10987]. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: California Sullivan <[email protected]> >>>>> --- >>>>> meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb | 10 >>>>> +++++++++- >>>>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb >>>>> b/meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb >>>>> index 5794a25952a..a9ba91bd310 100644 >>>>> --- a/meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb >>>>> +++ b/meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb >>>>> @@ -3,7 +3,15 @@ DESCRIPTION = "Small image capable of booting a >>>>> device. The kernel includes \ >>>>> the Minimal RAM-based Initial Root Filesystem (initramfs), which >>>>> finds the \ >>>>> first 'init' program more efficiently." >>>>> -PACKAGE_INSTALL = "initramfs-live-boot initramfs-live-install >>>>> initramfs-live-install-efi ${VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_base-utils} udev base-passwd >>>>> ${ROOTFS_BOOTSTRAP_INSTALL}" >>>>> +INITRAMFS_SCRIPTS ?= "\ >>>>> + initramfs-framework-base \ >>>>> + initramfs-module-setup-live \ >>>>> + initramfs-module-udev \ >>>>> + initramfs-module-install \ >>>>> + initramfs-module-install-efi \ >>>>> + " >>>>> + >>>>> +PACKAGE_INSTALL = "${INITRAMFS_SCRIPTS} ${VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_base-utils} >>>>> udev base-passwd ${ROOTFS_BOOTSTRAP_INSTALL}" >>>>> # Do not pollute the initrd image with rootfs features >>>>> IMAGE_FEATURES = "" >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> -- >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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
