On 7/2/20 3:46 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:
On Thu, 2020-07-02 at 10:43 +0800, Xu, Yanfei wrote:
On 7/1/20 9:42 PM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 4:22 AM Xu, Yanfei <yanfei...@windriver.com>
wrote:
On 6/28/20 8:21 PM, Xu, Yanfei wrote:
On 6/25/20 12:18 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:
On Wed, 2020-06-24 at 23:57 +0800, Xu, Yanfei wrote:
On 6/24/20 9:08 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:
On Wed, 2020-06-24 at 09:47 +0800, Xu, Yanfei wrote:
On 6/24/20 5:51 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:
On Tue, 2020-06-23 at 10:31 -0400, Bruce Ashfield
wrote:
On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 7:47 AM <
yanfei...@windriver.com>
wrote:
From: Yanfei Xu <yanfei...@windriver.com>
Some filesystems don't support symlink, then you
will get
failure
when
you install or update the kernel rpm package. Now
we use a
copy
of
image for these filesystems instead of symlink.
Suggested-by: Bruce Ashfield <
bruce.ashfi...@gmail.com>
Suggested-by: Richard Purdie <
richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Yanfei Xu <yanfei...@windriver.com
---
meta/classes/kernel.bbclass | 19
++++++++++++++++---
1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 3
deletions(-)
diff --git a/meta/classes/kernel.bbclass
b/meta/classes/kernel.bbclass
index 20a0135fc9..1269b54343 100644
--- a/meta/classes/kernel.bbclass
+++ b/meta/classes/kernel.bbclass
@@ -94,6 +94,22 @@ python __anonymous () {
d.appendVar('RDEPENDS_%s-image' %
kname, ' %s-
image-
%s' %
(kname, typelower))
d.setVar('PKG_%s-image-%s' %
(kname,typelower),
'%s-
image-
%s-${KERNEL_VERSION_PKG_NAME}' % (kname,
typelower))
d.setVar('ALLOW_EMPTY_%s-image-%s' %
(kname,
typelower),
'1')
+ d.setVar('pkg_postinst_ontarget_%s-
image-%s' %
(kname,typelower), """
You were previously concerned about boot issues if
the
unversioned
image link/copy was deferred until boot. I don't
see a
summary of
why
that's no longer a concern in the v3 of the patch.
Can you
confirm
that it isn't an issue ? Is it simply because the
booted
image
isn't
installed via this package, and hence we are fine ?
I'm suspecting this patch is why we're seeing
selftest
failures:
https://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org/typhoon/#/builders/86/builds/1055
Do you mean this patch has been applied? and introduce
new
issues?
Yes, I reverted it and retested and confirmed this patch
causes the
selftest failure in the link to the build above.
OK, I am trying to analyse the log. But I haven't figured
out what
cause
it fialed， and how to reproduce it on my mechine. I'd
apprecate any
information.
The command to reproduce should be:
oe-selftest -r efibootpartition.GenericEFITest.test_boot_efi
I've addressed this failure why due to boot partation in wic
doesn't
contain no-versioned image. This result is different from the
previous
I verified, because of the different configuraions in wks.
"--source" field in wks decides where the files in boot
partation come
from. So no-versioned image may come from ${IMAGE_ROOTFS}/boot
which is
installed by rpm package. Blow is the wks used by 'oe-selftest
-r
efibootpartition.GenericEFITest.test_boot_efi'
bootloader --ptable gpt
part /boot --source rootfs --rootfs-dir=${IMAGE_ROOTFS}/boot
--fstype=vfat --label boot --active --align 1024 --use-uuid
--overhead-factor 1.0
part / --source rootfs --fstype=ext4 --label root --align 1024
--exclude-path boot/
Hence we still should keep the no-versioned iamge in kernel-
image*.rpm
which is like the previous v2 patch.
Any opinions? It does cause the kernel rpm larger. However, the
kernel
image is not always large, only a few MB. And it will be changed
to
symlink when installed on targe. So this patch's only negative
effect
is the little increasement about update payloads.
I'm trying to follow the description that you had about the
oe-selftest and I'm missing something.
Can you describe it again ? In a way that someone not familiar with
that the selftest is seeing as a failure can grok ?
i.e. in the selftest configuration are we not getting the
(un)versioned kernel image because the symlink (or copy fallback)
is
in an on-boot post install hook ? And the test is looking for the
versioned/unversioned kernel image at image construction time ?
So that leaves us at either installing both the versioned and
unversioned, or some sort of package install time testing of the
target filesystem ? Does that partition exist at package install
time
? Is that the approach we tried in v1 of the patch (I know v2 was
keeping both as copies in the package, and converting it to a
symlink
on boot).
Sorry for the uncleared discription.
For the os-selftest failure: The failure happened at qemu booting
with
its wic image. Qemu could not find the unversioned kernel image in
wic
image for booting itself ,then caused the test failed.
Why the booted partition in wic image doesn't contain the unversioned
kernel image? Cause the wks can decide where the unversioned kernel
images in wic image comes from. For this test, it comes from
${IMAGE_ROOTFS}/boot which is installed by kernel rpm package.
Actually
it didn't get unversioned kernel image because the symlink（or copy
fallback） is in an on-boot post install hook.
Hence we should keep a unversioned kernel image in kernel rpm
package.
And patch v2 did it.（ v1 and v2 are similar, but v2 improves print
messages.）
This does bring us to a bit of an impasse as I don't really like the
idea of duplicating the kernel binaries twice in the packages just to
work around fat filesystem limitations.
Today its this file, you could argue we have to replace a load more
files with duplicate copies and postinstalls which would seem to be the
wrong direction to go in.
Yes, I agree that duplicate copies is not a good way to solve these
symlink problems for normal rpm. Users should be awared the
disadvantages of vfat filesystem. But kernel rpm maybe more important
than others rpm? so we could make its compatibility more all-around?
Which tools does the extraction of the files onto this fat system?
Could we ignore the symlink errors there and rely on a postinstall to
create if not already created?
It may not. Cause if the extraction of the files runs failed, the
postinstall of this rpm package won't excute. So...
Cheers,
Yanfei
Cheers,
Richard
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#140224):
https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/140224
Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/74977721/21656
Group Owner: openembedded-core+ow...@lists.openembedded.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
