On Thu, Feb 5, 2026 at 4:08 AM Kai <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2/4/26 23:53, Richard Purdie wrote: > > On Wed, 2026-02-04 at 09:10 -0500, Bruce Ashfield wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 4, 2026 at 9:05 AM Richard > Purdie<[email protected]> > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, 2026-02-04 at 09:02 -0500, Bruce Ashfield wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 4, 2026 at 8:58 AM Richard > Purdie<[email protected]> > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, 2026-02-04 at 08:46 -0500, Bruce Ashfield vialists.openembedded.org > wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 3, 2026 at 9:09 PM Kai Kang > vialists.openembedded.org<[email protected]> > <[email protected]> wrote: > > From: Kai Kang <[email protected]> <[email protected]> > > Check whether kernel config CONFIG_MODULES set or not > before do_compile > and do_install in module.bbclass. If not set, it cannot > build and > install external modules. > > > This isn't the place to do that check. > > If modules are disabled get modules_do_compile out of the > tasks. > > Does it make sense to have something including module.bbclass > which > doesn't have CONFIG_MODULES set? > > Yes, that's what I'm trying to say. > > Don't even include it if you can't build modules. That puts > the conditional in a single place, and keeps the code cleaner > in the class. > > I think we're talking cross purposes a bit. > > The issue is that if you ever reach do_compile in something using > module.bbclass which does not have CONFIG_MODULES set, that is a > problem and a hard error. > > So I'd argue that: > > * we only need the check in do_compile > * it should be a fatal exit hard error, not a warning > > which means the patch needs tweaking but not as you're suggesting. > > > > I don't have a strong opinion, so won't object. > > I just don't think adding any conditionals for module support in > moduldes.bbclass makes sense. So one versus two checks > is a wash for me. > > I agree the warn conditional isn't quite right. I think it should be: > > if [ CONFIG_MODULES not set in config ]; > bberror Broken config, CONFIG_MODULES not set > exit 1 > fi > > so it is basically a sanity test that the config is valid. > > I'm a bit worried about what I'm missing though :/ > > The original problem is kernel config_modules is disabled, then external > modules such as lttng-modules can't be built. > > Recipe lttng-tools RRECOMMENDS on lttng-modules. If install lttng-tools > into image, it fails to build lttng-modules. > > Kernel config CONFIG_MODULES couldn't be checked whether enabled or > disabled after bitbake parse. Then there is no chance to remove > lttng-module from the dependencies. That why I check the config during the > do_compile and do_install with bbnote and generate empty rpm package. >
That's exactly why we had a patch to the lttng source code. Someone updated that patch recently, so it has probably caused a regression. Bruce > Regards, > Kai > > Cheers, > > Richard > > > > > > -- > Kai Kang > Wind River Linux > > -- - Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await thee at its end - "Use the force Harry" - Gandalf, Star Trek II
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#230578): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/230578 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/117627823/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
