On Thursday 07 December 2017 at 11:44:12 -0800, Andre McCurdy wrote: > On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 11:20 AM, Khem Raj <raj.k...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 8:15 AM, Mike Crowe <m...@mcrowe.com> wrote: > >> I also noticed that > >> 849b67b2e4820564b5e5c9bd4bb293c44351c5f3 in 2016 changed the consequences > >> of exceeding the size from being fatal to merely a warning. > >> > >> This second change in behaviour wasn't described in the commit message, so > >> I'm not sure whether it was intentional. I can believe that when generating > >> multiple kernel image types it may not be essential that they all fit, but > >> I don't really know what the use case for the feature is. > >> > >> I could fix this by adding to kernel.bbclass something like: > >> > >> KERNEL_IMAGE_MAXSIZE_CONSEQUENCE ?= "warn" > >> > >> and then using it when delivering the bad news so that recipes can override > >> it if they wish. > >> > >> Alternatively, I could treat the error as being fatal if none of the kernel > >> images fit within the required size. This would degenerate to the old > >> behaviour automatically if KERNEL_IMAGETYPES contains only one entry. > > That sounds like a good solution.
Thanks. I've implemented that and it seems to work. I shall provide a patch shortly. However, despite appearances it seems that 849b67b2e4820564b5e5c9bd4bb293c44351c5f3 did accidentally make exceeding KERNEL_IMAGE_MAXSIZE fatal because there's no such function as "warn". I think that it should have been "bbwarn": run.do_sizecheck.12393: line 119: warn: command not found Mike. -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core