From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-lf0-f65.google.com (mail-lf0-f65.google.com [209.85.215.65]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 525406FF76 for ; Wed, 20 Jan 2016 23:29:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lf0-f65.google.com with SMTP id t141so1328562lfd.3 for ; Wed, 20 Jan 2016 15:30:00 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=GS6iUPE2j7CYZzn6NxyT+8oo6xHSulNhhMti/e8gXss=; b=W5PBhdu3WDDEiGPSwvqgjD4JpBP5xaZt7QWMHFJewd/pL3NCcouk7fjNDGOoaAMDVL Ru4xHyAbjx3AFIMsEAZcvJ2bDrey6zkrF1d8/ELms2uu9FGNBk1idI91Y2na+/HkZ6Ug yRWoa/OguwHuHbEZZHmMnbiLbYbLY6uOPCTu50uSmvxI0OBMtx9wHyNfXQ4+DP3plkWF AUoIrTbaDKCYggIbVahVzRufEFnRqlwSoPADVqjgywdU5Zn2qzfQe0JtUgXZztUYJaXn KquInwzuRjgKITKWH6AReKISok+nnS7KMyrQ4nz2Ba0rqU5E415P39eP3G2ItumIVv6P 0TDw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=GS6iUPE2j7CYZzn6NxyT+8oo6xHSulNhhMti/e8gXss=; b=DywAIbmvfBz/JGtLBb2bBHgdWHVdbtEivEvK6egeOBSfDRUHwIn7gbkxgEA9h7+BGO IdLxJQY/odO7OpAcR+TC0BYlQly/365ge04XiajvzrSoo3eX3zFGt9aOGJxH0n/J/+Z4 lUWDLcWdZ5n3QMuUSB/t9mBpJs5ufth/EFMCQku1nVfrZp2eXZlKUZWyDB4jUVDSdUy6 MmbXksLwLYEJg9Dow5eotIVVQKbdfpz+XB4v8sMyiVq4LGH6HuFTd0zqH3ArWETtGqc3 2oZtoewJqRfWczERdS6lMdRDZMhyECKlNmPy9qDP92z+BxuX5ROGxdL8OYG+iEnMxUKf Dcxw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk8CBSCte9L3W5Ih/tEkNWU2dc+rNwtHBydDoL5g9F9kE7TaxuQ6nrcrzQMQtQisYridxLvkTXsVdV3Cxfe/fmjqwYzyw== X-Received: by 10.25.41.193 with SMTP id p184mr14563112lfp.150.1453332596918; Wed, 20 Jan 2016 15:29:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.0.12] (c80-217-62-231.bredband.comhem.se. [80.217.62.231]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id un3sm5030864lbc.28.2016.01.20.15.29.56 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 20 Jan 2016 15:29:56 -0800 (PST) To: Bruce Ashfield , openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org References: <1451999565-3502-1-git-send-email-liu.ming50@gmail.com> <1451999565-3502-2-git-send-email-liu.ming50@gmail.com> <569E90F9.6020806@windriver.com> <569EB15C.9040502@gmail.com> <569F1086.6030400@windriver.com> From: Ming Liu Message-ID: <56A01873.8010604@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 00:29:55 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <569F1086.6030400@windriver.com> Cc: yue.tao@windriver.com, Ming Liu Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] kernel.bbclass: do not install initramfs bundled kernel image X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 23:30:04 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 01/20/2016 05:43 AM, Bruce Ashfield wrote: > On 2016-01-19 4:57 PM, Ming Liu wrote: >> >> >> On 01/19/2016 08:39 PM, Bruce Ashfield wrote: >>> On 16-01-05 08:12 AM, Ming Liu wrote: >>>> From: Ming Liu >>>> >>>> It makes no sense to install a initramfs bundled kernel image since >>>> do_package does not depend on do_bundle_initramfs at all, >>>> otherwise, it >>>> leads to a implicit kernel-image package depending on do_package run >>>> before >>>> or after do_bundle_initramfs. >>> >>> Again. So why not just add the ordering in the task dependencies ? >> If we add a intertask dependency like: >> add bundle_initramfs before do_install after do_deploy do_package >> >> Then it will somehow introduce a circular dependency as I described in >> another mail. >>> >>> I'm probably missing something, which just means we need to tweak >>> the commit log a bit more. >> Maybe I should add some description in commit log about why I think we >> could not introduce a intertask dependency as a fix. >> > > That would be ideal, the more information the better. > >>> >>> The code you are removing is conditional, and is run after an >>> explicit kernel_do_compile is called, to rebuild the existing >>> kernel configuration with an embedded initramfs (via alternate initrd). >>> So outside of some ordering/parallel execution issues, I'm not seeing >>> it as broken. >> Yes, I agree, it will not break the kernel re-compiling, the problem I >> want to fix here is just that it does not provide a certain way that we >> could add initramfs bundled kernel image into a rootfs. >> > > Speaking of breaking. What happens to existing users of INITRAMFS_IMAGE? > Do their existing image types and bundling continue to work without > modification ? That depends, the existing users always can find the INITRAMFS_IMAGE bundled kernel in DEPLOY_DIR with or without my patches, it is not broken. But if they want it installed in the rootfs, for some reasons, they will have the problem, like in my company, we want to boot the kernel from /boot/ on a USB disk, but it is not guaranteed we will get the INITRAMFS_IMAGE bundled kernel there during the build. //Ming Liu > > Bruce > >> //Ming Liu >>> >>> Bruce >>> >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Ming Liu >>>> --- >>>> meta/classes/kernel.bbclass | 4 ---- >>>> 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/meta/classes/kernel.bbclass b/meta/classes/kernel.bbclass >>>> index 4ce1611..d1ca614 100644 >>>> --- a/meta/classes/kernel.bbclass >>>> +++ b/meta/classes/kernel.bbclass >>>> @@ -179,10 +179,6 @@ do_bundle_initramfs () { >>>> kernel_do_compile >>>> mv -f ${KERNEL_OUTPUT} ${KERNEL_OUTPUT}.initramfs >>>> mv -f ${KERNEL_OUTPUT}.bak ${KERNEL_OUTPUT} >>>> - # Update install area >>>> - echo "There is kernel image bundled with initramfs: >>>> ${B}/${KERNEL_OUTPUT}.initramfs" >>>> - install -m 0644 ${B}/${KERNEL_OUTPUT}.initramfs >>>> ${D}/boot/${KERNEL_IMAGETYPE}-initramfs-${MACHINE}.bin >>>> - echo "${B}/${KERNEL_OUTPUT}.initramfs" >>>> fi >>>> } >>>> >>>> >>> >> >