Hi Sourabh,

On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 08:03:08AM -0700, Sourabh Banerjee wrote:
> Hi All,
> I need your suggestion on how to reconcile if the linux-libc-headers and 
> kernel versions are different?
> For this discussion let's consider we are using the LTS branch YP-3.1 
> (Dunfell).
> With Dunfell let's consider following 3 cases:
> 
> 1) Machine is supported on 5.4 kernel
> *Kernel Recipe:* linux-yocto_5.4.bb
> *libc-headers:* 
> meta/recipes-kernel/linux-libc-headers/linux-libc-headers_5.4.bb
> There is no conflict in this case as libc-headers and linux-yocto are on same 
> version.
> 
> 2) Machine is supported on a higher kernel (let's say 5.10)
> *Kernel Recipe:* Let's assume provided by a BSP layer, linux_5.10.bb
> *libc-headers:* 
> meta/recipes-kernel/linux-libc-headers/linux-libc-headers_5.4.bb
> The kernel version is higher in this case. But, should be okay as 5.10 UAPI 
> is backward compatible and supports  linux-libc-headers_5.4 completely.
> 
> 3) Machine is supported on a lower kernel (let's say 4.19)
> Kernel Recipe: Let's assume provided by a BSP layer, linux_4.19.bb
> libc-headers: meta/recipes-kernel/linux-libc-headers/linux-libc-headers_5.4.bb
> The kernel version is lower in this case. I suppose, this may lead to some 
> runtime issues? As the kernel built from 4.19 will not be able to support 5.4 
> UAPI fully.
> What's the recommendation here? Should the BSP provider port 
> linux-libc-header_4.19.bb in BSP layer and set 
> PREFERRED_VERSION_linux-libc-headers = "4.19%"
> 

The issue is that linux-libc-headers is not machine-specific, only
distro-specific, so you'd need this PREFERRED_VERSION_linux-libc-headers
specified in a distro (or local.conf for that matter, but... NO, please
NO :) ).

You could also technically provide your own linux-libc-headers in a
layer of a higher priority and then PREFERRED_VERSION_linux-libc-headers
won't matter as the highest prio layer's recipe will take precedence.
But that is IMO bad practice as it means your distro has a different
linux-libc-headers depending on whether a layer is included or not.

I don't have a solution personally, just wanted to share why the last
suggestion does not seem correct to me.

Cheers,
Quentin
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#150856): 
https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/150856
Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/82312890/21656
Group Owner: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub 
[[email protected]]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Reply via email to