On 2/22/15, 5:04 AM, Richard Purdie richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org
wrote:
As people know, I've been looking at performance a little, one of the
benchmarks is how long the kernel takes to build. I dumped out the task
performance data from buildstats for a linux-yocto build (nothing else
On 1/27/15, 8:18 AM, Richard Purdie richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org
wrote:
On Tue, 2015-01-27 at 15:48 +, Hart, Darren wrote:
On 1/27/15, 7:45 AM, Bruce Ashfield bruce.ashfi...@windriver.com
wrote:
On 15-01-27 10:29 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:
We need the depmod data so that the kernel
On 1/27/15, 7:45 AM, Bruce Ashfield bruce.ashfi...@windriver.com wrote:
On 15-01-27 10:29 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:
We need the depmod data so that the kernel depmod command works
successfully
at rootfs time. The fact this was working inconsistently is now
highlighted
after the command was
On 1/20/15, 6:16 AM, Bruce Ashfield bruce.ashfi...@windriver.com wrote:
On 15-01-20 08:33 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:
With the rpm package backend enabled, running:
bitbake image
bitbake virtual/kernel -c clean
bitbake image -c rootfs -f
results in an image with incorrect kernel module
On 1/12/15, 5:27 PM, Robert Yang liezhi.y...@windriver.com wrote:
On 01/13/2015 09:19 AM, Robert Yang wrote:
On 01/07/2015 08:26 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:
I'm hearing (somewhat justified) complaints that the recent kernel
changes have destablised builds. Part of the question is whether
On 8/4/14, 21:33, Kamble, Nitin A nitin.a.kam...@intel.com wrote:
On 8/4/2014 9:38 AM, Hart, Darren wrote:
On 7/29/14, 11:34, Kamble, Nitin A nitin.a.kam...@intel.com wrote:
...
+ if [ -n ${INITRD} ]; then
+ rm -f $dest/initrd
+ for fs in ${INITRD}
+ do
On 8/5/14, 14:39, Kamble, Nitin A nitin.a.kam...@intel.com wrote:
From: Nitin A Kamble nitin.a.kam...@intel.com
The use of the INITRD variable is changed in a recent commit. Instead of
specifying a single filesystem image, it specifies a list of file system
images. Reflecting this change in the
On 8/5/14, 14:39, Kamble, Nitin A nitin.a.kam...@intel.com wrote:
From: Nitin A Kamble nitin.a.kam...@intel.com
* Remove an unnecessary check
* Instead of ignoring, report the errors
This isn't enough to ask for a resend, but please be a bit more explicit
in what is going on in future commit
On 7/29/14, 11:34, Kamble, Nitin A nitin.a.kam...@intel.com wrote:
From: Nitin A Kamble nitin.a.kam...@intel.com
Hi Nitin,
Generally speaking this looks like a good improvement. I don't have any
major technical concerns, but we do need to address some grammatical
issues in the commit and the
On 6/13/14, 12:13, Denys Dmytriyenko de...@denix.org wrote:
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 03:02:05PM -0400, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Richard Purdie
richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
The current module_autoload_* and module_conf_* variables are error
both
On 4/15/14, 9:54, Paul Eggleton paul.eggle...@linux.intel.com wrote:
On Friday 11 April 2014 10:53:17 Kamble, Nitin A wrote:
On 4/11/2014 10:48 AM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
On 14-04-11 01:05 PM, nitin.a.kam...@intel.com wrote:
From: Nitin A Kamble nitin.a.kam...@intel.com
Use machine
Indeed, because the SRCURI was made machine specific. In the case of Linux
Yocto custom... Their is no namespace pollution to worry about, as there is
with Linux Yocto... Should we perhaps drop all the overrides and provide
comented examples instead?
On Apr 13, 2014 8:39 AM, Richard Purdie
On 4/11/14, 10:05, Kamble, Nitin A nitin.a.kam...@intel.com wrote:
From: Nitin A Kamble nitin.a.kam...@intel.com
Use machine overrides for variables for this skeleton recipe so that
people following skeleton do it right at the beginning.
The machine overrides for the variables reduces pollution
On 4/11/14, 10:59, Kamble, Nitin A nitin.a.kam...@intel.com wrote:
From: Nitin A Kamble nitin.a.kam...@intel.com
Use machine overrides for variables for this skeleton kernel recipe
so that people following skeleton do it right at the beginning.
The machine overrides for the variables reduces
I tripped over a couple of do_compile failures today with lib newt and
kexec-tools from master. After letting the -k image build complete and
performing a clean all on the two packages, the subsequent build command
succeeded. I suspect we have a missing DEPENDS in there that my modestly
parallel
On Tue, 2014-01-07 at 16:54 +0100, Martin Jansa wrote:
On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 04:20:37PM +0100, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
On 07/01/2014 15:35, Martin Jansa wrote:
On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 03:18:37PM +0100, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
When using a defconfig, using yes '' | make oldconfig may
On Tue, 2014-01-07 at 21:32 +0100, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
On 07/01/2014 19:11, Hart, Darren wrote:
Please check for the functionality, not KERNEL_VERSION. The
KERNEL_VERSION doesn't allow for backports and such which might add this
ability. Grep the Makefile for the target, for example
On Fri, 2013-11-22 at 11:05 +, Paul Eggleton wrote:
Hi Darren,
On Thursday 21 November 2013 18:47:07 Hart, Darren wrote:
Regarding the following 2 bugs:
https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5574
Add kernel version / configuration check mechanism
and
https
On Thu, 2013-11-21 at 15:25 +, Richard Purdie wrote:
On real IA hardware, neither the ext3 or cpio images are particularly useful
or used. cpio is legacy from initramfs and that specific image now overrides
FSTYPES accordingly. The size difference in filesystems makes ext3 as a file
format
All,
Regarding the following 2 bugs:
https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5574
Add kernel version / configuration check mechanism
and
https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2267
Integrate DISTRO_FEATURES with KERNEL_FEATURES
There is a need to reduce errors where a
On Fri, 2013-11-08 at 15:17 +, Richard Purdie wrote:
Whilst the comment says we can't do this, its incorrect, install operates
on WORKDIR and its hard for different parts of WORKDIR to be on different
Is it hard? Or is it not possible / not supported?
My understanding was it was possible
On Fri, 2013-11-08 at 16:50 +, Richard Purdie wrote:
On Fri, 2013-11-08 at 10:59 -0500, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
On 13-11-08 10:55 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:
On Fri, 2013-11-08 at 10:41 -0500, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
On 13-11-08 10:18 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:
The kernel tree is large
22 matches
Mail list logo
