On Sat, Oct 14, 2023 at 10:30:48AM -0400, Bruce Ashfield wrote: > On Sat, Oct 14, 2023 at 10:14 AM Olivier Dautricourt > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Since Commit 67274c083438340ad16c ("scripts/gdb: delay generation of gdb > > constants.py") in kernel source tree (>=V5.1), scripts_gdb target needs > > explicit run to build scripts/gdb. (vmlinux-gdb.py script is used by gdb for > > linux kernel integration). > > > > As this step was previously not needed, this suggest newer kernels builds > > do not bundle it anymore, this change provides the same functionalities > > for kernels >=V5.1 . > > It also suggests that very few people use the integration :) > > > > > Signed-off-by: Olivier Dautricourt <[email protected]> > > --- > > meta/classes-recipe/kernel.bbclass | 3 +++ > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/meta/classes-recipe/kernel.bbclass > > b/meta/classes-recipe/kernel.bbclass > > index 2ec9ea2091..5206b4f2a7 100644 > > --- a/meta/classes-recipe/kernel.bbclass > > +++ b/meta/classes-recipe/kernel.bbclass > > @@ -394,6 +394,9 @@ kernel_do_compile() { > > for typeformake in ${KERNEL_IMAGETYPE_FOR_MAKE} ; do > > oe_runmake ${PARALLEL_MAKE} ${typeformake} > > ${KERNEL_EXTRA_ARGS} $use_alternate_initrd > > done > > + if (grep -q -i -e '^CONFIG_GDB_SCRIPTS=y$' .config && grep -q -e > > "^PHONY +=.*scripts_gdb" "${S}/Makefile"); then > > + oe_runmake ${PARALLEL_MAKE} scripts_gdb > > + fi > > We really try to avoid using any explicit checks for CONFIG_* in the kernel > classes or using them to coordinate functionality. While I don't think that > this > is a significant issue here (since what is being built is small and it > is isolated), > it is something that could be coordinated via a distro feature as the main > "on off" switch. We already have some debug distro features, and I could see > this being something that could trigger when they are enabled (and for > kernel-yocto derived kernels, it could also ensure that gdb functionality is > enabled via a fragment). > > I'd also suggest that this could be placed into a separate task like we do > for modules. Again, the build here is small, but it is something outside of > the > core kernel build which is the purpose of do_compile in the kernel classes. > As a task, it also would be easy enough for other users to override if it > causes > them issues. > > Cheers, > > Bruce
Thanks for the quick reply. I understood your points and i will see how to better integrate this. Kind Regards, Olivier
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#189117): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/189117 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/101960387/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
