Hi Phil,
On 10/11/24 19:57, Richard Purdie wrote:
On Fri, 2024-10-11 at 07:40 +0800, Phil Reid wrote:
On 10/10/2024 15:17, Richard Purdie wrote:
On Thu, 2024-10-10 at 13:25 +0800, Phil Reid via lists.openembedded.org
wrote:
Changes to the logic of is_work_shared where made in
commit: 5fbb4ca8da4f4f1ea426275c45634802dcb5a575
"archiver.bbclass: Improve work-shared checking"
The resuled in a change of the logic (simplifed here) from:
inherits(gcc-source) or inherits(kernel) or (inherits(kernelsrc)
and srcin(work-shared))
to just
srcin(work-shared)
With INHERIT += "archiver" in the local.conf and a kernel recipe that
uses
KERNEL_PACKAGE_NAME. When KERNEL_PACKAGE_NAME is defined the kernel
source is not placed into work-shared, but the archiver ends up
deleting the source folder in the work dir, and the build
subsequently fails.
Restore the previous logic while also mainting the referenced commits
intent
to consider all recipes that use work-shared. Logic is now
inherits(gcc-source) or inherits(kernel) or srcin(work-shared)
Signed-off-by: Phil Reid <[email protected]>
---
meta/classes/archiver.bbclass | 5 ++++-
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
You're effectively reverting that commit whilst changing the logic so
it looks slightly different.
Was there a problem with gcc-source archiving as I notice the patch
adds gcc-source back too?
To be honest I didn't test without the gcc-source, I reverted the commit first
after
finding that commit to be the cause and modified it so it consider it always
considered
work-shared path and called it done and the old logic conditions.
The commit message isn't quite accurate as gcc-source isn't something
which gets inherited.
Fair enough.
Does this only happen with kernel recipes which use
KERNEL_PACKAGE_NAME? That might be the key missing detail which would
allow us to reproduce the failure.
I haven't seen the problem on a virtual/kernel.
When KERNEL_PACKAGE_NAME is specified the kernel source isn't put into
work-shared.
How would you like to see this fixed?
I deal with many patches a day and part of the review process is to see
if a change makes sense. So far, this patch does not add up properly.
What I need is a change which makes sense and is something I can
review, agree with and merge. What I don't have is time to deep dive
into every issue and work out the proper fix, much as I would love to.
So far on this issue, the information I do have isn't adding up
correctly.
Taking what you say above, "KERNEL_PACKAGE_NAME is specified the kernel
source isn't put into work-shared" - that makes sense.
If the kernel isn't being put into shared workdir, "is_work_shared()"
should be returning False in this case. Looking at the logic, I believe
that is true and it will for a KERNEL_PACKAGE_NAME recipe.
So what you're probably saying is that the code should be using the
"shared" codepath for the KERNEL_PACKAGE_NAME even though the workdir
isn't shared. At this point I'm just having to speculate though.
So how would I like to see this fixed? I'd like to see an explaintion
of the problem which makes sense and I'd like to see changes which
don't make the code "worse", i.e. making a "is_work_shared()" function
return True when it isn't.
It sounds like there is a deeper problem with the archiver code which
needs fixing at the root of the issue. Again, I'm back to speculating
though.
Can you provide a simple reproducer, please? I'd like to look into the issue if
I reproduce it.
// Robert
Cheers,
Richard
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#206617):
https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/206617
Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/108924104/21656
Group Owner: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub
[[email protected]]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
