All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Patrick Ohly <patrick.ohly@intel.com>
To: "Aníbal Limón" <anibal.limon@linux.intel.com>
Cc: yocto@yoctoproject.org, openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCHv2] yocto-compat-layer.py: Add script to YP Compatible Layer validation
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 21:09:28 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1488312568.7785.73.camel@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1487625169-22282-1-git-send-email-anibal.limon@linux.intel.com>

On Mon, 2017-02-20 at 15:12 -0600, Aníbal Limón wrote:
> common.test_signatures: Test executed in BSP and DISTRO layers to review
>     doesn't comes with recipes that changes the signatures.

I have a question about the goal for this test: is it meant to detect
layers which incorrectly change the signatures of allarch recipes or
recipes which share the same tune flags with other machines?

Let's take MACHINE=edison as an example.

Modifying allarch creates a conflict with basically all other machines
in a distro. Example for something not allowed:
VOLATILE_BINDS_append_pn-volatile-binds_edison = " /var/volatile/foo /var/foo \n"

This can be detected by comparing against OE-core, but only when testing
with MACHINE=edison.

More difficult to detect is modifying recipes with the same tune flags,
which is the majority of the recipes. MACHINE=edison and
MACHINE=intel-core2-32 both compile for the same target architecture, so
something like this is incorrect:
do_install_append_pn-base-files_edison () {
    echo "Built for Edison" >>${D}${sysconfdir}/motd
}

This can only be detected when testing with both MACHINE=edison and
MACHINE=intel-core2-32 - at least I think MACHINE=qemux86 uses different
tune flags (haven't checked).

My point is, the test probably needs to be extended to run with a set of
machines, and that set of machines must be broad enough to cover a
variety of common tune flags.

The corresponding selftest, test_sstate_sametune_samesigs in
sstatetests.py, has the same limitation of its scope, i.e. doesn't
actually test with real machine definitions.

-- 
Best Regards, Patrick Ohly

The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although
I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way
represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak
on behalf of Intel on this matter.





WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Patrick Ohly <patrick.ohly@intel.com>
To: "Aníbal Limón" <anibal.limon@linux.intel.com>
Cc: yocto@yoctoproject.org, openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2] yocto-compat-layer.py: Add script to YP Compatible Layer validation
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 21:09:28 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1488312568.7785.73.camel@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1487625169-22282-1-git-send-email-anibal.limon@linux.intel.com>

On Mon, 2017-02-20 at 15:12 -0600, Aníbal Limón wrote:
> common.test_signatures: Test executed in BSP and DISTRO layers to review
>     doesn't comes with recipes that changes the signatures.

I have a question about the goal for this test: is it meant to detect
layers which incorrectly change the signatures of allarch recipes or
recipes which share the same tune flags with other machines?

Let's take MACHINE=edison as an example.

Modifying allarch creates a conflict with basically all other machines
in a distro. Example for something not allowed:
VOLATILE_BINDS_append_pn-volatile-binds_edison = " /var/volatile/foo /var/foo \n"

This can be detected by comparing against OE-core, but only when testing
with MACHINE=edison.

More difficult to detect is modifying recipes with the same tune flags,
which is the majority of the recipes. MACHINE=edison and
MACHINE=intel-core2-32 both compile for the same target architecture, so
something like this is incorrect:
do_install_append_pn-base-files_edison () {
    echo "Built for Edison" >>${D}${sysconfdir}/motd
}

This can only be detected when testing with both MACHINE=edison and
MACHINE=intel-core2-32 - at least I think MACHINE=qemux86 uses different
tune flags (haven't checked).

My point is, the test probably needs to be extended to run with a set of
machines, and that set of machines must be broad enough to cover a
variety of common tune flags.

The corresponding selftest, test_sstate_sametune_samesigs in
sstatetests.py, has the same limitation of its scope, i.e. doesn't
actually test with real machine definitions.

-- 
Best Regards, Patrick Ohly

The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although
I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way
represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak
on behalf of Intel on this matter.





  reply	other threads:[~2017-02-28 20:09 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-02-20 21:12 [PATCHv2] yocto-compat-layer.py: Add script to YP Compatible Layer validation Aníbal Limón
2017-02-28 20:09 ` Patrick Ohly [this message]
2017-02-28 20:09   ` Patrick Ohly
2017-02-28 20:33   ` [OE-core] " Aníbal Limón
2017-02-28 20:33     ` Aníbal Limón
2017-02-28 22:17     ` [OE-core] " Patrick Ohly
2017-02-28 22:17       ` Patrick Ohly
2017-03-01  4:00   ` [OE-core] " Richard Purdie
2017-03-01  4:00     ` Richard Purdie
2017-03-01  7:10     ` [OE-core] " Patrick Ohly
2017-03-01  7:10       ` Patrick Ohly
2017-03-01 15:12       ` [OE-core] " Richard Purdie
2017-03-01 15:12         ` Richard Purdie
2017-03-01 15:51         ` [OE-core] " Patrick Ohly
2017-03-01 15:51           ` Patrick Ohly
2017-03-01 16:01           ` [OE-core] " Richard Purdie
2017-03-01 16:01             ` Richard Purdie
2017-03-01 16:47             ` [OE-core] " Patrick Ohly
2017-03-01 16:47               ` Patrick Ohly
2017-05-08 13:36 ` [OE-core] " Patrick Ohly
2017-05-08 13:36   ` Patrick Ohly
2017-05-08 15:14   ` [OE-core] " Aníbal Limón
2017-05-08 15:14     ` Aníbal Limón

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1488312568.7785.73.camel@intel.com \
    --to=patrick.ohly@intel.com \
    --cc=anibal.limon@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org \
    --cc=yocto@yoctoproject.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.