* [PATCH] core-image-minimal-initramfs: use initramfs-framework for initialization
@ 2017-12-19 22:12 California Sullivan
2018-01-10 1:00 ` Cal Sullivan
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: California Sullivan @ 2017-12-19 22:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: openembedded-core
initramfs-framework is more modular and expandable. This change was
proposed in commit 28fc6ba761ed4a47efa7c43e7f7dff5e2fe72b5e
"core-image-minimal-initramfs: use initramfs-framework by default" but
reverted due to the selftests runqemu.RunqemuTests.test_boot_machine_iso
and runqemu.RunqemuTests.test_boot_deploy_hddimg failing. Since then,
the kinks have been worked out, and missing functionality that had been
missed (non-EFI installation module) has been added.
Since the PACKAGE_INSTALL variable was getting so long with all these
individual modules getting added, I also introduced a new
INITRAMFS_SCRIPTS variable to the core-image-minimal-initramfs recipe.
This variable makes the recipe look much cleaner, and also allows easier
replacement or additions to the scripts.
Fixes [YOCTO #10987].
Signed-off-by: California Sullivan <california.l.sullivan@intel.com>
---
meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb | 10 +++++++++-
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb b/meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb
index 5794a25952a..a9ba91bd310 100644
--- a/meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb
+++ b/meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb
@@ -3,7 +3,15 @@ DESCRIPTION = "Small image capable of booting a device. The kernel includes \
the Minimal RAM-based Initial Root Filesystem (initramfs), which finds the \
first 'init' program more efficiently."
-PACKAGE_INSTALL = "initramfs-live-boot initramfs-live-install initramfs-live-install-efi ${VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_base-utils} udev base-passwd ${ROOTFS_BOOTSTRAP_INSTALL}"
+INITRAMFS_SCRIPTS ?= "\
+ initramfs-framework-base \
+ initramfs-module-setup-live \
+ initramfs-module-udev \
+ initramfs-module-install \
+ initramfs-module-install-efi \
+ "
+
+PACKAGE_INSTALL = "${INITRAMFS_SCRIPTS} ${VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_base-utils} udev base-passwd ${ROOTFS_BOOTSTRAP_INSTALL}"
# Do not pollute the initrd image with rootfs features
IMAGE_FEATURES = ""
--
2.14.3
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] core-image-minimal-initramfs: use initramfs-framework for initialization
2017-12-19 22:12 [PATCH] core-image-minimal-initramfs: use initramfs-framework for initialization California Sullivan
@ 2018-01-10 1:00 ` Cal Sullivan
2018-01-31 22:53 ` Cal Sullivan
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Cal Sullivan @ 2018-01-10 1:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: openembedded-core
Anything wrong with this? Haven't seen it hit any mut branches.
Thanks,
Cal
On 12/19/2017 02:12 PM, California Sullivan wrote:
> initramfs-framework is more modular and expandable. This change was
> proposed in commit 28fc6ba761ed4a47efa7c43e7f7dff5e2fe72b5e
> "core-image-minimal-initramfs: use initramfs-framework by default" but
> reverted due to the selftests runqemu.RunqemuTests.test_boot_machine_iso
> and runqemu.RunqemuTests.test_boot_deploy_hddimg failing. Since then,
> the kinks have been worked out, and missing functionality that had been
> missed (non-EFI installation module) has been added.
>
> Since the PACKAGE_INSTALL variable was getting so long with all these
> individual modules getting added, I also introduced a new
> INITRAMFS_SCRIPTS variable to the core-image-minimal-initramfs recipe.
> This variable makes the recipe look much cleaner, and also allows easier
> replacement or additions to the scripts.
>
> Fixes [YOCTO #10987].
>
> Signed-off-by: California Sullivan <california.l.sullivan@intel.com>
> ---
> meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb | 10 +++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb b/meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb
> index 5794a25952a..a9ba91bd310 100644
> --- a/meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb
> +++ b/meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb
> @@ -3,7 +3,15 @@ DESCRIPTION = "Small image capable of booting a device. The kernel includes \
> the Minimal RAM-based Initial Root Filesystem (initramfs), which finds the \
> first 'init' program more efficiently."
>
> -PACKAGE_INSTALL = "initramfs-live-boot initramfs-live-install initramfs-live-install-efi ${VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_base-utils} udev base-passwd ${ROOTFS_BOOTSTRAP_INSTALL}"
> +INITRAMFS_SCRIPTS ?= "\
> + initramfs-framework-base \
> + initramfs-module-setup-live \
> + initramfs-module-udev \
> + initramfs-module-install \
> + initramfs-module-install-efi \
> + "
> +
> +PACKAGE_INSTALL = "${INITRAMFS_SCRIPTS} ${VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_base-utils} udev base-passwd ${ROOTFS_BOOTSTRAP_INSTALL}"
>
> # Do not pollute the initrd image with rootfs features
> IMAGE_FEATURES = ""
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] core-image-minimal-initramfs: use initramfs-framework for initialization
2018-01-10 1:00 ` Cal Sullivan
@ 2018-01-31 22:53 ` Cal Sullivan
2018-02-01 14:03 ` Burton, Ross
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Cal Sullivan @ 2018-01-31 22:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: openembedded-core
Ping.
---
Cal
On 01/09/2018 05:00 PM, Cal Sullivan wrote:
> Anything wrong with this? Haven't seen it hit any mut branches.
>
> Thanks,
> Cal
>
> On 12/19/2017 02:12 PM, California Sullivan wrote:
>> initramfs-framework is more modular and expandable. This change was
>> proposed in commit 28fc6ba761ed4a47efa7c43e7f7dff5e2fe72b5e
>> "core-image-minimal-initramfs: use initramfs-framework by default" but
>> reverted due to the selftests runqemu.RunqemuTests.test_boot_machine_iso
>> and runqemu.RunqemuTests.test_boot_deploy_hddimg failing. Since then,
>> the kinks have been worked out, and missing functionality that had been
>> missed (non-EFI installation module) has been added.
>>
>> Since the PACKAGE_INSTALL variable was getting so long with all these
>> individual modules getting added, I also introduced a new
>> INITRAMFS_SCRIPTS variable to the core-image-minimal-initramfs recipe.
>> This variable makes the recipe look much cleaner, and also allows easier
>> replacement or additions to the scripts.
>>
>> Fixes [YOCTO #10987].
>>
>> Signed-off-by: California Sullivan <california.l.sullivan@intel.com>
>> ---
>> meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb | 10
>> +++++++++-
>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb
>> b/meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb
>> index 5794a25952a..a9ba91bd310 100644
>> --- a/meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb
>> +++ b/meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb
>> @@ -3,7 +3,15 @@ DESCRIPTION = "Small image capable of booting a
>> device. The kernel includes \
>> the Minimal RAM-based Initial Root Filesystem (initramfs), which
>> finds the \
>> first 'init' program more efficiently."
>> -PACKAGE_INSTALL = "initramfs-live-boot initramfs-live-install
>> initramfs-live-install-efi ${VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_base-utils} udev
>> base-passwd ${ROOTFS_BOOTSTRAP_INSTALL}"
>> +INITRAMFS_SCRIPTS ?= "\
>> + initramfs-framework-base \
>> + initramfs-module-setup-live \
>> + initramfs-module-udev \
>> + initramfs-module-install \
>> + initramfs-module-install-efi \
>> + "
>> +
>> +PACKAGE_INSTALL = "${INITRAMFS_SCRIPTS}
>> ${VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_base-utils} udev base-passwd
>> ${ROOTFS_BOOTSTRAP_INSTALL}"
>> # Do not pollute the initrd image with rootfs features
>> IMAGE_FEATURES = ""
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] core-image-minimal-initramfs: use initramfs-framework for initialization
2018-01-31 22:53 ` Cal Sullivan
@ 2018-02-01 14:03 ` Burton, Ross
2018-02-05 23:34 ` Burton, Ross
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Burton, Ross @ 2018-02-01 14:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Cal Sullivan; +Cc: OE-core
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3047 bytes --]
Sorry, missed this. I'll pull it into MUT and throw it at the
autobuilder...
Ross
On 31 January 2018 at 22:53, Cal Sullivan <california.l.sullivan@intel.com>
wrote:
> Ping.
>
> ---
> Cal
>
>
> On 01/09/2018 05:00 PM, Cal Sullivan wrote:
>
>> Anything wrong with this? Haven't seen it hit any mut branches.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Cal
>>
>> On 12/19/2017 02:12 PM, California Sullivan wrote:
>>
>>> initramfs-framework is more modular and expandable. This change was
>>> proposed in commit 28fc6ba761ed4a47efa7c43e7f7dff5e2fe72b5e
>>> "core-image-minimal-initramfs: use initramfs-framework by default" but
>>> reverted due to the selftests runqemu.RunqemuTests.test_boot_machine_iso
>>> and runqemu.RunqemuTests.test_boot_deploy_hddimg failing. Since then,
>>> the kinks have been worked out, and missing functionality that had been
>>> missed (non-EFI installation module) has been added.
>>>
>>> Since the PACKAGE_INSTALL variable was getting so long with all these
>>> individual modules getting added, I also introduced a new
>>> INITRAMFS_SCRIPTS variable to the core-image-minimal-initramfs recipe.
>>> This variable makes the recipe look much cleaner, and also allows easier
>>> replacement or additions to the scripts.
>>>
>>> Fixes [YOCTO #10987].
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: California Sullivan <california.l.sullivan@intel.com>
>>> ---
>>> meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb | 10
>>> +++++++++-
>>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb
>>> b/meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb
>>> index 5794a25952a..a9ba91bd310 100644
>>> --- a/meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb
>>> +++ b/meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb
>>> @@ -3,7 +3,15 @@ DESCRIPTION = "Small image capable of booting a device.
>>> The kernel includes \
>>> the Minimal RAM-based Initial Root Filesystem (initramfs), which finds
>>> the \
>>> first 'init' program more efficiently."
>>> -PACKAGE_INSTALL = "initramfs-live-boot initramfs-live-install
>>> initramfs-live-install-efi ${VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_base-utils} udev base-passwd
>>> ${ROOTFS_BOOTSTRAP_INSTALL}"
>>> +INITRAMFS_SCRIPTS ?= "\
>>> + initramfs-framework-base \
>>> + initramfs-module-setup-live \
>>> + initramfs-module-udev \
>>> + initramfs-module-install \
>>> + initramfs-module-install-efi \
>>> + "
>>> +
>>> +PACKAGE_INSTALL = "${INITRAMFS_SCRIPTS} ${VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_base-utils}
>>> udev base-passwd ${ROOTFS_BOOTSTRAP_INSTALL}"
>>> # Do not pollute the initrd image with rootfs features
>>> IMAGE_FEATURES = ""
>>>
>>
>>
> --
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4613 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] core-image-minimal-initramfs: use initramfs-framework for initialization
2018-02-01 14:03 ` Burton, Ross
@ 2018-02-05 23:34 ` Burton, Ross
2018-02-06 0:15 ` Cal Sullivan
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Burton, Ross @ 2018-02-05 23:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Cal Sullivan; +Cc: OE-core
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4629 bytes --]
This is causing the qemu boot wic test to fail in oe-selftest:
2018-02-05 15:08:41,786 - oe-selftest - INFO - FAIL [64.639s]: test_qemu
(wic.Wic)
2018-02-05 15:08:41,786 - oe-selftest - INFO -
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2018-02-05 15:08:41,786 - oe-selftest - INFO - Traceback (most recent call
last):
File
"/home/pokybuild/yocto-autobuilder/yocto-worker/nightly-oe-selftest/build/meta/lib/oeqa/core/decorator/__init__.py",
line 32, in wrapped_f
return func(*args, **kwargs)
File
"/home/pokybuild/yocto-autobuilder/yocto-worker/nightly-oe-selftest/build/meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/cases/wic.py",
line 58, in wrapped_f
return func(*args, **kwargs)
File
"/home/pokybuild/yocto-autobuilder/yocto-worker/nightly-oe-selftest/build/meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/cases/wic.py",
line 637, in test_qemu
self.assertEqual(output, '/dev/root /\r\n/dev/sda1 /boot\r\n/dev/sda3
/mnt')
AssertionError: '/dev/root /\r\n/dev/sda1 /boot\r\n/dev/sda3
/media\r\n/dev/sda4 /mnt' != '/dev/root /\r\n/dev/sda1 /boot\r\n/dev/sda3
/mnt'
/dev/root /
/dev/sda1 /boot
- /dev/sda3 /media
- /dev/sda4 /mnt? ^
+ /dev/sda3 /mnt? ^
Presumably this is the initramfs mounting more stuff automatically? I
don't have an opinion right now as to whether this is a problem with the
initramfs or the test case being too strict...
Ross
On 1 February 2018 at 14:03, Burton, Ross <ross.burton@intel.com> wrote:
> Sorry, missed this. I'll pull it into MUT and throw it at the
> autobuilder...
>
> Ross
>
> On 31 January 2018 at 22:53, Cal Sullivan <california.l.sullivan@intel.com
> > wrote:
>
>> Ping.
>>
>> ---
>> Cal
>>
>>
>> On 01/09/2018 05:00 PM, Cal Sullivan wrote:
>>
>>> Anything wrong with this? Haven't seen it hit any mut branches.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Cal
>>>
>>> On 12/19/2017 02:12 PM, California Sullivan wrote:
>>>
>>>> initramfs-framework is more modular and expandable. This change was
>>>> proposed in commit 28fc6ba761ed4a47efa7c43e7f7dff5e2fe72b5e
>>>> "core-image-minimal-initramfs: use initramfs-framework by default" but
>>>> reverted due to the selftests runqemu.RunqemuTests.test_boot
>>>> _machine_iso
>>>> and runqemu.RunqemuTests.test_boot_deploy_hddimg failing. Since then,
>>>> the kinks have been worked out, and missing functionality that had been
>>>> missed (non-EFI installation module) has been added.
>>>>
>>>> Since the PACKAGE_INSTALL variable was getting so long with all these
>>>> individual modules getting added, I also introduced a new
>>>> INITRAMFS_SCRIPTS variable to the core-image-minimal-initramfs recipe.
>>>> This variable makes the recipe look much cleaner, and also allows easier
>>>> replacement or additions to the scripts.
>>>>
>>>> Fixes [YOCTO #10987].
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: California Sullivan <california.l.sullivan@intel.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb | 10
>>>> +++++++++-
>>>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb
>>>> b/meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb
>>>> index 5794a25952a..a9ba91bd310 100644
>>>> --- a/meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb
>>>> +++ b/meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb
>>>> @@ -3,7 +3,15 @@ DESCRIPTION = "Small image capable of booting a
>>>> device. The kernel includes \
>>>> the Minimal RAM-based Initial Root Filesystem (initramfs), which
>>>> finds the \
>>>> first 'init' program more efficiently."
>>>> -PACKAGE_INSTALL = "initramfs-live-boot initramfs-live-install
>>>> initramfs-live-install-efi ${VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_base-utils} udev base-passwd
>>>> ${ROOTFS_BOOTSTRAP_INSTALL}"
>>>> +INITRAMFS_SCRIPTS ?= "\
>>>> + initramfs-framework-base \
>>>> + initramfs-module-setup-live \
>>>> + initramfs-module-udev \
>>>> + initramfs-module-install \
>>>> + initramfs-module-install-efi \
>>>> + "
>>>> +
>>>> +PACKAGE_INSTALL = "${INITRAMFS_SCRIPTS} ${VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_base-utils}
>>>> udev base-passwd ${ROOTFS_BOOTSTRAP_INSTALL}"
>>>> # Do not pollute the initrd image with rootfs features
>>>> IMAGE_FEATURES = ""
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> _______________________________________________
>> Openembedded-core mailing list
>> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
>> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
>>
>
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 6671 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] core-image-minimal-initramfs: use initramfs-framework for initialization
2018-02-05 23:34 ` Burton, Ross
@ 2018-02-06 0:15 ` Cal Sullivan
2018-02-06 0:47 ` Khem Raj
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Cal Sullivan @ 2018-02-06 0:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Burton, Ross; +Cc: OE-core
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6621 bytes --]
Looking at the test and the output, its expecting /dev/sda3 to be
mounted as /media and /dev/sda4 to be mounted as /mnt. With this test
result, there is no /media, and instead /dev/sda3 is mounted to /mnt.
That seems odd to me unless that partition either wasn't created or went
entirely undetected.
I'll take a closer look, I think there's more going on here.
---
Cal
On 02/05/2018 03:34 PM, Burton, Ross wrote:
> This is causing the qemu boot wic test to fail in oe-selftest:
>
> 2018-02-05 15:08:41,786 - oe-selftest - INFO - FAIL [64.639s]:
> test_qemu (wic.Wic)
> 2018-02-05 15:08:41,786 - oe-selftest - INFO -
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 2018-02-05 15:08:41,786 - oe-selftest - INFO - Traceback (most recent
> call last):
> File
> "/home/pokybuild/yocto-autobuilder/yocto-worker/nightly-oe-selftest/build/meta/lib/oeqa/core/decorator/__init__.py",
> line 32, in wrapped_f
> return func(*args, **kwargs)
> File
> "/home/pokybuild/yocto-autobuilder/yocto-worker/nightly-oe-selftest/build/meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/cases/wic.py",
> line 58, in wrapped_f
> return func(*args, **kwargs)
> File
> "/home/pokybuild/yocto-autobuilder/yocto-worker/nightly-oe-selftest/build/meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/cases/wic.py",
> line 637, in test_qemu
> self.assertEqual(output, '/dev/root /\r\n/dev/sda1
> /boot\r\n/dev/sda3 /mnt')
> AssertionError: '/dev/root /\r\n/dev/sda1 /boot\r\n/dev/sda3
> /media\r\n/dev/sda4 /mnt' != '/dev/root /\r\n/dev/sda1
> /boot\r\n/dev/sda3 /mnt'
> /dev/root /
> /dev/sda1 /boot
> - /dev/sda3 /media
> - /dev/sda4 /mnt? ^
> + /dev/sda3 /mnt? ^
>
> Presumably this is the initramfs mounting more stuff automatically? I
> don't have an opinion right now as to whether this is a problem with
> the initramfs or the test case being too strict...
>
> Ross
>
>
> On 1 February 2018 at 14:03, Burton, Ross <ross.burton@intel.com
> <mailto:ross.burton@intel.com>> wrote:
>
> Sorry, missed this. I'll pull it into MUT and throw it at the
> autobuilder...
>
> Ross
>
> On 31 January 2018 at 22:53, Cal Sullivan
> <california.l.sullivan@intel.com
> <mailto:california.l.sullivan@intel.com>> wrote:
>
> Ping.
>
> ---
> Cal
>
>
> On 01/09/2018 05:00 PM, Cal Sullivan wrote:
>
> Anything wrong with this? Haven't seen it hit any mut
> branches.
>
> Thanks,
> Cal
>
> On 12/19/2017 02:12 PM, California Sullivan wrote:
>
> initramfs-framework is more modular and expandable.
> This change was
> proposed in commit
> 28fc6ba761ed4a47efa7c43e7f7dff5e2fe72b5e
> "core-image-minimal-initramfs: use initramfs-framework
> by default" but
> reverted due to the selftests
> runqemu.RunqemuTests.test_boot_machine_iso
> and runqemu.RunqemuTests.test_boot_deploy_hddimg
> failing. Since then,
> the kinks have been worked out, and missing
> functionality that had been
> missed (non-EFI installation module) has been added.
>
> Since the PACKAGE_INSTALL variable was getting so long
> with all these
> individual modules getting added, I also introduced a new
> INITRAMFS_SCRIPTS variable to the
> core-image-minimal-initramfs recipe.
> This variable makes the recipe look much cleaner, and
> also allows easier
> replacement or additions to the scripts.
>
> Fixes [YOCTO #10987].
>
> Signed-off-by: California Sullivan
> <california.l.sullivan@intel.com
> <mailto:california.l.sullivan@intel.com>>
> ---
>
> meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb
> <http://core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb> | 10 +++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git
> a/meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb
> <http://core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb>
> b/meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb
> <http://core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb>
> index 5794a25952a..a9ba91bd310 100644
> ---
> a/meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb
> <http://core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb>
> +++
> b/meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb
> <http://core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb>
> @@ -3,7 +3,15 @@ DESCRIPTION = "Small image capable of
> booting a device. The kernel includes \
> the Minimal RAM-based Initial Root Filesystem
> (initramfs), which finds the \
> first 'init' program more efficiently."
> -PACKAGE_INSTALL = "initramfs-live-boot
> initramfs-live-install initramfs-live-install-efi
> ${VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_base-utils} udev base-passwd
> ${ROOTFS_BOOTSTRAP_INSTALL}"
> +INITRAMFS_SCRIPTS ?= "\
> + initramfs-framework-base \
> + initramfs-module-setup-live \
> + initramfs-module-udev \
> + initramfs-module-install \
> + initramfs-module-install-efi \
> + "
> +
> +PACKAGE_INSTALL = "${INITRAMFS_SCRIPTS}
> ${VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_base-utils} udev base-passwd
> ${ROOTFS_BOOTSTRAP_INSTALL}"
> # Do not pollute the initrd image with rootfs features
> IMAGE_FEATURES = ""
>
>
>
> --
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> <mailto:Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org>
> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
> <http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core>
>
>
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 12332 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] core-image-minimal-initramfs: use initramfs-framework for initialization
2018-02-06 0:15 ` Cal Sullivan
@ 2018-02-06 0:47 ` Khem Raj
2018-02-06 1:52 ` Cal Sullivan
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Khem Raj @ 2018-02-06 0:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Cal Sullivan; +Cc: OE-core
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5611 bytes --]
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 4:15 PM Cal Sullivan <california.l.sullivan@intel.com>
wrote:
> Looking at the test and the output, its expecting /dev/sda3 to be mounted
> as /media and /dev/sda4 to be mounted as /mnt. With this test result, there
> is no /media, and instead /dev/sda3 is mounted to /mnt.
>
> That seems odd to me unless that partition either wasn't created or went
> entirely undetected.
>
> I'll take a closer look, I think there's more going on here.
>
Udev trigger sometimes get ignored have seem that in past
>
>
> ---
> Cal
>
> On 02/05/2018 03:34 PM, Burton, Ross wrote:
>
> This is causing the qemu boot wic test to fail in oe-selftest:
>
> 2018-02-05 15:08:41,786 - oe-selftest - INFO - FAIL [64.639s]: test_qemu
> (wic.Wic)
> 2018-02-05 15:08:41,786 - oe-selftest - INFO -
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 2018-02-05 15:08:41,786 - oe-selftest - INFO - Traceback (most recent call
> last):
> File
> "/home/pokybuild/yocto-autobuilder/yocto-worker/nightly-oe-selftest/build/meta/lib/oeqa/core/decorator/__init__.py",
> line 32, in wrapped_f
> return func(*args, **kwargs)
> File
> "/home/pokybuild/yocto-autobuilder/yocto-worker/nightly-oe-selftest/build/meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/cases/wic.py",
> line 58, in wrapped_f
> return func(*args, **kwargs)
> File
> "/home/pokybuild/yocto-autobuilder/yocto-worker/nightly-oe-selftest/build/meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/cases/wic.py",
> line 637, in test_qemu
> self.assertEqual(output, '/dev/root /\r\n/dev/sda1 /boot\r\n/dev/sda3
> /mnt')
> AssertionError: '/dev/root /\r\n/dev/sda1 /boot\r\n/dev/sda3
> /media\r\n/dev/sda4 /mnt' != '/dev/root /\r\n/dev/sda1 /boot\r\n/dev/sda3
> /mnt'
> /dev/root /
> /dev/sda1 /boot
> - /dev/sda3 /media
> - /dev/sda4 /mnt? ^
> + /dev/sda3 /mnt? ^
>
> Presumably this is the initramfs mounting more stuff automatically? I
> don't have an opinion right now as to whether this is a problem with the
> initramfs or the test case being too strict...
>
> Ross
>
>
> On 1 February 2018 at 14:03, Burton, Ross <ross.burton@intel.com> wrote:
>
>> Sorry, missed this. I'll pull it into MUT and throw it at the
>> autobuilder...
>>
>> Ross
>>
>> On 31 January 2018 at 22:53, Cal Sullivan <
>> california.l.sullivan@intel.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Ping.
>>>
>>> ---
>>> Cal
>>>
>>>
>>> On 01/09/2018 05:00 PM, Cal Sullivan wrote:
>>>
>>>> Anything wrong with this? Haven't seen it hit any mut branches.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Cal
>>>>
>>>> On 12/19/2017 02:12 PM, California Sullivan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> initramfs-framework is more modular and expandable. This change was
>>>>> proposed in commit 28fc6ba761ed4a47efa7c43e7f7dff5e2fe72b5e
>>>>> "core-image-minimal-initramfs: use initramfs-framework by default" but
>>>>> reverted due to the selftests
>>>>> runqemu.RunqemuTests.test_boot_machine_iso
>>>>> and runqemu.RunqemuTests.test_boot_deploy_hddimg failing. Since then,
>>>>> the kinks have been worked out, and missing functionality that had been
>>>>> missed (non-EFI installation module) has been added.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since the PACKAGE_INSTALL variable was getting so long with all these
>>>>> individual modules getting added, I also introduced a new
>>>>> INITRAMFS_SCRIPTS variable to the core-image-minimal-initramfs recipe.
>>>>> This variable makes the recipe look much cleaner, and also allows
>>>>> easier
>>>>> replacement or additions to the scripts.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fixes [YOCTO #10987].
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: California Sullivan <california.l.sullivan@intel.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb | 10
>>>>> +++++++++-
>>>>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb
>>>>> b/meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb
>>>>> index 5794a25952a..a9ba91bd310 100644
>>>>> --- a/meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb
>>>>> +++ b/meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb
>>>>> @@ -3,7 +3,15 @@ DESCRIPTION = "Small image capable of booting a
>>>>> device. The kernel includes \
>>>>> the Minimal RAM-based Initial Root Filesystem (initramfs), which
>>>>> finds the \
>>>>> first 'init' program more efficiently."
>>>>> -PACKAGE_INSTALL = "initramfs-live-boot initramfs-live-install
>>>>> initramfs-live-install-efi ${VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_base-utils} udev base-passwd
>>>>> ${ROOTFS_BOOTSTRAP_INSTALL}"
>>>>> +INITRAMFS_SCRIPTS ?= "\
>>>>> + initramfs-framework-base \
>>>>> + initramfs-module-setup-live \
>>>>> + initramfs-module-udev \
>>>>> + initramfs-module-install \
>>>>> + initramfs-module-install-efi \
>>>>> + "
>>>>> +
>>>>> +PACKAGE_INSTALL = "${INITRAMFS_SCRIPTS} ${VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_base-utils}
>>>>> udev base-passwd ${ROOTFS_BOOTSTRAP_INSTALL}"
>>>>> # Do not pollute the initrd image with rootfs features
>>>>> IMAGE_FEATURES = ""
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> --
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Openembedded-core mailing list
>>> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
>>> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
>>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 12157 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] core-image-minimal-initramfs: use initramfs-framework for initialization
2018-02-06 0:47 ` Khem Raj
@ 2018-02-06 1:52 ` Cal Sullivan
2018-02-06 19:03 ` Cal Sullivan
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Cal Sullivan @ 2018-02-06 1:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Khem Raj; +Cc: OE-core
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 8241 bytes --]
On 02/05/2018 04:47 PM, Khem Raj wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 4:15 PM Cal Sullivan
> <california.l.sullivan@intel.com
> <mailto:california.l.sullivan@intel.com>> wrote:
>
> Looking at the test and the output, its expecting /dev/sda3 to be
> mounted as /media and /dev/sda4 to be mounted as /mnt. With this
> test result, there is no /media, and instead /dev/sda3 is mounted
> to /mnt.
>
> That seems odd to me unless that partition either wasn't created
> or went entirely undetected.
>
> I'll take a closer look, I think there's more going on here.
>
>
> Udev trigger sometimes get ignored have seem that in past
Thanks for the info Khem! I think its an intermittent issue unrelated to
this patch.
I ran the following with my patch applied on top of master and only
SANITY_TESTED_DISTROS changed in local.conf:
MACHINE=qemux86-64 oe-selftest -r wic.Wic.test_qemu
And it didn't fail.
I'm going to run this test a few hundred times overnight without my
patch and see if I can hit it.
Thanks,
Cal
>
>
> ---
> Cal
>
> On 02/05/2018 03:34 PM, Burton, Ross wrote:
>> This is causing the qemu boot wic test to fail in oe-selftest:
>>
>> 2018-02-05 15:08:41,786 - oe-selftest - INFO - FAIL [64.639s]:
>> test_qemu (wic.Wic)
>> 2018-02-05 15:08:41,786 - oe-selftest - INFO -
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 2018-02-05 15:08:41,786 - oe-selftest - INFO - Traceback (most
>> recent call last):
>> File
>> "/home/pokybuild/yocto-autobuilder/yocto-worker/nightly-oe-selftest/build/meta/lib/oeqa/core/decorator/__init__.py",
>> line 32, in wrapped_f
>> return func(*args, **kwargs)
>> File
>> "/home/pokybuild/yocto-autobuilder/yocto-worker/nightly-oe-selftest/build/meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/cases/wic.py",
>> line 58, in wrapped_f
>> return func(*args, **kwargs)
>> File
>> "/home/pokybuild/yocto-autobuilder/yocto-worker/nightly-oe-selftest/build/meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/cases/wic.py",
>> line 637, in test_qemu
>> self.assertEqual(output, '/dev/root /\r\n/dev/sda1
>> /boot\r\n/dev/sda3 /mnt')
>> AssertionError: '/dev/root /\r\n/dev/sda1 /boot\r\n/dev/sda3
>> /media\r\n/dev/sda4 /mnt' != '/dev/root /\r\n/dev/sda1
>> /boot\r\n/dev/sda3 /mnt'
>> /dev/root /
>> /dev/sda1 /boot
>> - /dev/sda3 /media
>> - /dev/sda4 /mnt? ^
>> + /dev/sda3 /mnt? ^
>>
>> Presumably this is the initramfs mounting more stuff
>> automatically? I don't have an opinion right now as to whether
>> this is a problem with the initramfs or the test case being too
>> strict...
>>
>> Ross
>>
>>
>> On 1 February 2018 at 14:03, Burton, Ross <ross.burton@intel.com
>> <mailto:ross.burton@intel.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Sorry, missed this. I'll pull it into MUT and throw it at
>> the autobuilder...
>>
>> Ross
>>
>> On 31 January 2018 at 22:53, Cal Sullivan
>> <california.l.sullivan@intel.com
>> <mailto:california.l.sullivan@intel.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Ping.
>>
>> ---
>> Cal
>>
>>
>> On 01/09/2018 05:00 PM, Cal Sullivan wrote:
>>
>> Anything wrong with this? Haven't seen it hit any mut
>> branches.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Cal
>>
>> On 12/19/2017 02:12 PM, California Sullivan wrote:
>>
>> initramfs-framework is more modular and
>> expandable. This change was
>> proposed in commit
>> 28fc6ba761ed4a47efa7c43e7f7dff5e2fe72b5e
>> "core-image-minimal-initramfs: use
>> initramfs-framework by default" but
>> reverted due to the selftests
>> runqemu.RunqemuTests.test_boot_machine_iso
>> and runqemu.RunqemuTests.test_boot_deploy_hddimg
>> failing. Since then,
>> the kinks have been worked out, and missing
>> functionality that had been
>> missed (non-EFI installation module) has been added.
>>
>> Since the PACKAGE_INSTALL variable was getting so
>> long with all these
>> individual modules getting added, I also
>> introduced a new
>> INITRAMFS_SCRIPTS variable to the
>> core-image-minimal-initramfs recipe.
>> This variable makes the recipe look much cleaner,
>> and also allows easier
>> replacement or additions to the scripts.
>>
>> Fixes [YOCTO #10987].
>>
>> Signed-off-by: California Sullivan
>> <california.l.sullivan@intel.com
>> <mailto:california.l.sullivan@intel.com>>
>> ---
>>
>> meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb
>> <http://core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb> | 10
>> +++++++++-
>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git
>> a/meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb
>> <http://core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb>
>> b/meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb
>> <http://core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb>
>> index 5794a25952a..a9ba91bd310 100644
>> ---
>> a/meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb
>> <http://core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb>
>> +++
>> b/meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb
>> <http://core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb>
>> @@ -3,7 +3,15 @@ DESCRIPTION = "Small image
>> capable of booting a device. The kernel includes \
>> the Minimal RAM-based Initial Root Filesystem
>> (initramfs), which finds the \
>> first 'init' program more efficiently."
>> -PACKAGE_INSTALL = "initramfs-live-boot
>> initramfs-live-install initramfs-live-install-efi
>> ${VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_base-utils} udev base-passwd
>> ${ROOTFS_BOOTSTRAP_INSTALL}"
>> +INITRAMFS_SCRIPTS ?= "\
>> + initramfs-framework-base \
>> + initramfs-module-setup-live \
>> + initramfs-module-udev \
>> + initramfs-module-install \
>> + initramfs-module-install-efi \
>> + "
>> +
>> +PACKAGE_INSTALL = "${INITRAMFS_SCRIPTS}
>> ${VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_base-utils} udev base-passwd
>> ${ROOTFS_BOOTSTRAP_INSTALL}"
>> # Do not pollute the initrd image with rootfs
>> features
>> IMAGE_FEATURES = ""
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> _______________________________________________
>> Openembedded-core mailing list
>> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
>> <mailto:Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org>
>> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> <mailto:Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org>
> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 18047 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] core-image-minimal-initramfs: use initramfs-framework for initialization
2018-02-06 1:52 ` Cal Sullivan
@ 2018-02-06 19:03 ` Cal Sullivan
2018-02-26 20:34 ` Cal Sullivan
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Cal Sullivan @ 2018-02-06 19:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Khem Raj; +Cc: OE-core
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 8793 bytes --]
Shortly after leaving work last night I realized that this error should
have nothing to do with the initrd/initramfs, as this wic image is not
using one.
Also, in 300 runs of this test the error didn't occur once, so it
appears to be very rare.
---
Cal
On 02/05/2018 05:52 PM, Cal Sullivan wrote:
>
>
> On 02/05/2018 04:47 PM, Khem Raj wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 4:15 PM Cal Sullivan
>> <california.l.sullivan@intel.com
>> <mailto:california.l.sullivan@intel.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Looking at the test and the output, its expecting /dev/sda3 to be
>> mounted as /media and /dev/sda4 to be mounted as /mnt. With this
>> test result, there is no /media, and instead /dev/sda3 is mounted
>> to /mnt.
>>
>> That seems odd to me unless that partition either wasn't created
>> or went entirely undetected.
>>
>> I'll take a closer look, I think there's more going on here.
>>
>>
>> Udev trigger sometimes get ignored have seem that in past
> Thanks for the info Khem! I think its an intermittent issue unrelated
> to this patch.
>
> I ran the following with my patch applied on top of master and only
> SANITY_TESTED_DISTROS changed in local.conf:
>
> MACHINE=qemux86-64 oe-selftest -r wic.Wic.test_qemu
>
> And it didn't fail.
>
> I'm going to run this test a few hundred times overnight without my
> patch and see if I can hit it.
>
> Thanks,
> Cal
>
>>
>>
>> ---
>> Cal
>>
>> On 02/05/2018 03:34 PM, Burton, Ross wrote:
>>> This is causing the qemu boot wic test to fail in oe-selftest:
>>>
>>> 2018-02-05 15:08:41,786 - oe-selftest - INFO - FAIL [64.639s]:
>>> test_qemu (wic.Wic)
>>> 2018-02-05 15:08:41,786 - oe-selftest - INFO -
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 2018-02-05 15:08:41,786 - oe-selftest - INFO - Traceback (most
>>> recent call last):
>>> File
>>> "/home/pokybuild/yocto-autobuilder/yocto-worker/nightly-oe-selftest/build/meta/lib/oeqa/core/decorator/__init__.py",
>>> line 32, in wrapped_f
>>> return func(*args, **kwargs)
>>> File
>>> "/home/pokybuild/yocto-autobuilder/yocto-worker/nightly-oe-selftest/build/meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/cases/wic.py",
>>> line 58, in wrapped_f
>>> return func(*args, **kwargs)
>>> File
>>> "/home/pokybuild/yocto-autobuilder/yocto-worker/nightly-oe-selftest/build/meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/cases/wic.py",
>>> line 637, in test_qemu
>>> self.assertEqual(output, '/dev/root /\r\n/dev/sda1
>>> /boot\r\n/dev/sda3 /mnt')
>>> AssertionError: '/dev/root /\r\n/dev/sda1 /boot\r\n/dev/sda3
>>> /media\r\n/dev/sda4 /mnt' != '/dev/root /\r\n/dev/sda1
>>> /boot\r\n/dev/sda3 /mnt'
>>> /dev/root /
>>> /dev/sda1 /boot
>>> - /dev/sda3 /media
>>> - /dev/sda4 /mnt? ^
>>> + /dev/sda3 /mnt? ^
>>>
>>> Presumably this is the initramfs mounting more stuff
>>> automatically? I don't have an opinion right now as to whether
>>> this is a problem with the initramfs or the test case being too
>>> strict...
>>>
>>> Ross
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1 February 2018 at 14:03, Burton, Ross <ross.burton@intel.com
>>> <mailto:ross.burton@intel.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Sorry, missed this. I'll pull it into MUT and throw it at
>>> the autobuilder...
>>>
>>> Ross
>>>
>>> On 31 January 2018 at 22:53, Cal Sullivan
>>> <california.l.sullivan@intel.com
>>> <mailto:california.l.sullivan@intel.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Ping.
>>>
>>> ---
>>> Cal
>>>
>>>
>>> On 01/09/2018 05:00 PM, Cal Sullivan wrote:
>>>
>>> Anything wrong with this? Haven't seen it hit any
>>> mut branches.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Cal
>>>
>>> On 12/19/2017 02:12 PM, California Sullivan wrote:
>>>
>>> initramfs-framework is more modular and
>>> expandable. This change was
>>> proposed in commit
>>> 28fc6ba761ed4a47efa7c43e7f7dff5e2fe72b5e
>>> "core-image-minimal-initramfs: use
>>> initramfs-framework by default" but
>>> reverted due to the selftests
>>> runqemu.RunqemuTests.test_boot_machine_iso
>>> and runqemu.RunqemuTests.test_boot_deploy_hddimg
>>> failing. Since then,
>>> the kinks have been worked out, and missing
>>> functionality that had been
>>> missed (non-EFI installation module) has been added.
>>>
>>> Since the PACKAGE_INSTALL variable was getting
>>> so long with all these
>>> individual modules getting added, I also
>>> introduced a new
>>> INITRAMFS_SCRIPTS variable to the
>>> core-image-minimal-initramfs recipe.
>>> This variable makes the recipe look much
>>> cleaner, and also allows easier
>>> replacement or additions to the scripts.
>>>
>>> Fixes [YOCTO #10987].
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: California Sullivan
>>> <california.l.sullivan@intel.com
>>> <mailto:california.l.sullivan@intel.com>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb
>>> <http://core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb> | 10
>>> +++++++++-
>>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git
>>> a/meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb
>>> <http://core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb>
>>> b/meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb
>>> <http://core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb>
>>> index 5794a25952a..a9ba91bd310 100644
>>> ---
>>> a/meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb
>>> <http://core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb>
>>> +++
>>> b/meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb
>>> <http://core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb>
>>> @@ -3,7 +3,15 @@ DESCRIPTION = "Small image
>>> capable of booting a device. The kernel includes \
>>> the Minimal RAM-based Initial Root Filesystem
>>> (initramfs), which finds the \
>>> first 'init' program more efficiently."
>>> -PACKAGE_INSTALL = "initramfs-live-boot
>>> initramfs-live-install
>>> initramfs-live-install-efi
>>> ${VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_base-utils} udev base-passwd
>>> ${ROOTFS_BOOTSTRAP_INSTALL}"
>>> +INITRAMFS_SCRIPTS ?= "\
>>> + initramfs-framework-base \
>>> + initramfs-module-setup-live \
>>> + initramfs-module-udev \
>>> + initramfs-module-install \
>>> + initramfs-module-install-efi \
>>> + "
>>> +
>>> +PACKAGE_INSTALL = "${INITRAMFS_SCRIPTS}
>>> ${VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_base-utils} udev base-passwd
>>> ${ROOTFS_BOOTSTRAP_INSTALL}"
>>> # Do not pollute the initrd image with
>>> rootfs features
>>> IMAGE_FEATURES = ""
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Openembedded-core mailing list
>>> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
>>> <mailto:Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org>
>>> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> _______________________________________________
>> Openembedded-core mailing list
>> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
>> <mailto:Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org>
>> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
>>
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 19305 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] core-image-minimal-initramfs: use initramfs-framework for initialization
2018-02-06 19:03 ` Cal Sullivan
@ 2018-02-26 20:34 ` Cal Sullivan
0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Cal Sullivan @ 2018-02-26 20:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Khem Raj; +Cc: OE-core
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 9368 bytes --]
Hi Ross,
Somehow dropped you from CC on my last reply. Can we give this another
shot? The error we saw should be unrelated to this patch, as the wic
image being tested here does not use core-image-minimal-initramfs at all.
Thanks,
Cal
On 02/06/2018 11:03 AM, Cal Sullivan wrote:
> Shortly after leaving work last night I realized that this error
> should have nothing to do with the initrd/initramfs, as this wic image
> is not using one.
>
> Also, in 300 runs of this test the error didn't occur once, so it
> appears to be very rare.
>
> ---
> Cal
>
> On 02/05/2018 05:52 PM, Cal Sullivan wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 02/05/2018 04:47 PM, Khem Raj wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 4:15 PM Cal Sullivan
>>> <california.l.sullivan@intel.com
>>> <mailto:california.l.sullivan@intel.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Looking at the test and the output, its expecting /dev/sda3 to
>>> be mounted as /media and /dev/sda4 to be mounted as /mnt. With
>>> this test result, there is no /media, and instead /dev/sda3 is
>>> mounted to /mnt.
>>>
>>> That seems odd to me unless that partition either wasn't created
>>> or went entirely undetected.
>>>
>>> I'll take a closer look, I think there's more going on here.
>>>
>>>
>>> Udev trigger sometimes get ignored have seem that in past
>> Thanks for the info Khem! I think its an intermittent issue unrelated
>> to this patch.
>>
>> I ran the following with my patch applied on top of master and only
>> SANITY_TESTED_DISTROS changed in local.conf:
>>
>> MACHINE=qemux86-64 oe-selftest -r wic.Wic.test_qemu
>>
>> And it didn't fail.
>>
>> I'm going to run this test a few hundred times overnight without my
>> patch and see if I can hit it.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Cal
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---
>>> Cal
>>>
>>> On 02/05/2018 03:34 PM, Burton, Ross wrote:
>>>> This is causing the qemu boot wic test to fail in oe-selftest:
>>>>
>>>> 2018-02-05 15:08:41,786 - oe-selftest - INFO - FAIL [64.639s]:
>>>> test_qemu (wic.Wic)
>>>> 2018-02-05 15:08:41,786 - oe-selftest - INFO -
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> 2018-02-05 15:08:41,786 - oe-selftest - INFO - Traceback (most
>>>> recent call last):
>>>> File
>>>> "/home/pokybuild/yocto-autobuilder/yocto-worker/nightly-oe-selftest/build/meta/lib/oeqa/core/decorator/__init__.py",
>>>> line 32, in wrapped_f
>>>> return func(*args, **kwargs)
>>>> File
>>>> "/home/pokybuild/yocto-autobuilder/yocto-worker/nightly-oe-selftest/build/meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/cases/wic.py",
>>>> line 58, in wrapped_f
>>>> return func(*args, **kwargs)
>>>> File
>>>> "/home/pokybuild/yocto-autobuilder/yocto-worker/nightly-oe-selftest/build/meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/cases/wic.py",
>>>> line 637, in test_qemu
>>>> self.assertEqual(output, '/dev/root /\r\n/dev/sda1
>>>> /boot\r\n/dev/sda3 /mnt')
>>>> AssertionError: '/dev/root /\r\n/dev/sda1 /boot\r\n/dev/sda3
>>>> /media\r\n/dev/sda4 /mnt' != '/dev/root /\r\n/dev/sda1
>>>> /boot\r\n/dev/sda3 /mnt'
>>>> /dev/root /
>>>> /dev/sda1 /boot
>>>> - /dev/sda3 /media
>>>> - /dev/sda4 /mnt? ^
>>>> + /dev/sda3 /mnt? ^
>>>>
>>>> Presumably this is the initramfs mounting more stuff
>>>> automatically? I don't have an opinion right now as to whether
>>>> this is a problem with the initramfs or the test case being too
>>>> strict...
>>>>
>>>> Ross
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 1 February 2018 at 14:03, Burton, Ross
>>>> <ross.burton@intel.com <mailto:ross.burton@intel.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, missed this. I'll pull it into MUT and throw it at
>>>> the autobuilder...
>>>>
>>>> Ross
>>>>
>>>> On 31 January 2018 at 22:53, Cal Sullivan
>>>> <california.l.sullivan@intel.com
>>>> <mailto:california.l.sullivan@intel.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Ping.
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> Cal
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 01/09/2018 05:00 PM, Cal Sullivan wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Anything wrong with this? Haven't seen it hit any
>>>> mut branches.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Cal
>>>>
>>>> On 12/19/2017 02:12 PM, California Sullivan wrote:
>>>>
>>>> initramfs-framework is more modular and
>>>> expandable. This change was
>>>> proposed in commit
>>>> 28fc6ba761ed4a47efa7c43e7f7dff5e2fe72b5e
>>>> "core-image-minimal-initramfs: use
>>>> initramfs-framework by default" but
>>>> reverted due to the selftests
>>>> runqemu.RunqemuTests.test_boot_machine_iso
>>>> and
>>>> runqemu.RunqemuTests.test_boot_deploy_hddimg
>>>> failing. Since then,
>>>> the kinks have been worked out, and missing
>>>> functionality that had been
>>>> missed (non-EFI installation module) has been
>>>> added.
>>>>
>>>> Since the PACKAGE_INSTALL variable was getting
>>>> so long with all these
>>>> individual modules getting added, I also
>>>> introduced a new
>>>> INITRAMFS_SCRIPTS variable to the
>>>> core-image-minimal-initramfs recipe.
>>>> This variable makes the recipe look much
>>>> cleaner, and also allows easier
>>>> replacement or additions to the scripts.
>>>>
>>>> Fixes [YOCTO #10987].
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: California Sullivan
>>>> <california.l.sullivan@intel.com
>>>> <mailto:california.l.sullivan@intel.com>>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb
>>>> <http://core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb> | 10
>>>> +++++++++-
>>>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git
>>>> a/meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb
>>>> <http://core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb>
>>>> b/meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb
>>>> <http://core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb>
>>>> index 5794a25952a..a9ba91bd310 100644
>>>> ---
>>>> a/meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb
>>>> <http://core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb>
>>>> +++
>>>> b/meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb
>>>> <http://core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb>
>>>> @@ -3,7 +3,15 @@ DESCRIPTION = "Small image
>>>> capable of booting a device. The kernel includes \
>>>> the Minimal RAM-based Initial Root Filesystem
>>>> (initramfs), which finds the \
>>>> first 'init' program more efficiently."
>>>> -PACKAGE_INSTALL = "initramfs-live-boot
>>>> initramfs-live-install
>>>> initramfs-live-install-efi
>>>> ${VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_base-utils} udev base-passwd
>>>> ${ROOTFS_BOOTSTRAP_INSTALL}"
>>>> +INITRAMFS_SCRIPTS ?= "\
>>>> + initramfs-framework-base \
>>>> + initramfs-module-setup-live \
>>>> + initramfs-module-udev \
>>>> + initramfs-module-install \
>>>> + initramfs-module-install-efi \
>>>> + "
>>>> +
>>>> +PACKAGE_INSTALL = "${INITRAMFS_SCRIPTS}
>>>> ${VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_base-utils} udev base-passwd
>>>> ${ROOTFS_BOOTSTRAP_INSTALL}"
>>>> # Do not pollute the initrd image with
>>>> rootfs features
>>>> IMAGE_FEATURES = ""
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Openembedded-core mailing list
>>>> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
>>>> <mailto:Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org>
>>>> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Openembedded-core mailing list
>>> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
>>> <mailto:Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org>
>>> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
>>>
>>
>
>
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 20779 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2018-02-26 20:34 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2017-12-19 22:12 [PATCH] core-image-minimal-initramfs: use initramfs-framework for initialization California Sullivan
2018-01-10 1:00 ` Cal Sullivan
2018-01-31 22:53 ` Cal Sullivan
2018-02-01 14:03 ` Burton, Ross
2018-02-05 23:34 ` Burton, Ross
2018-02-06 0:15 ` Cal Sullivan
2018-02-06 0:47 ` Khem Raj
2018-02-06 1:52 ` Cal Sullivan
2018-02-06 19:03 ` Cal Sullivan
2018-02-26 20:34 ` Cal Sullivan
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.