On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 11:42 PM, Saul Wold <s...@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> On 09/12/2012 01:10 PM, Andrei Gherzan wrote: > >> If we round up ROOTFS_SIZE to IMAGE_ROOTFS_ALIGNMENT before checking if >> base_size is greater then IMAGE_ROOTFS_SIZE, we can end up adding an >> unaligned value to IMAGE_ROOTFS_SIZE. Obviously, if >> IMAGE_ROOTFS_EXTRA_SPACE was overwritten with an unaligned value. So >> let's add the round up code after the base_size calculus and it's >> comparison. >> >> Signed-off-by: Andrei Gherzan <and...@gherzan.ro> >> --- >> meta/classes/image_types.**bbclass | 7 +++++-- >> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/meta/classes/image_types.**bbclass >> b/meta/classes/image_types.**bbclass >> index d286eea..6c01b21 100644 >> --- a/meta/classes/image_types.**bbclass >> +++ b/meta/classes/image_types.**bbclass >> @@ -82,9 +82,12 @@ runimagecmd () { >> # The base_size gets calculated: >> # - initial size determined by `du -ks` of the IMAGE_ROOTFS >> # - then multiplied by the IMAGE_OVERHEAD_FACTOR >> - # - then rounded up to IMAGE_ROOTFS_ALIGNMENT >> # - finally tested against IMAGE_ROOTFS_SIZE >> - ROOTFS_SIZE=`du -ks ${IMAGE_ROOTFS}|awk '{base_size = $1 * >> ${IMAGE_OVERHEAD_FACTOR} + ${IMAGE_ROOTFS_ALIGNMENT} - 1; base_size -= >> base_size % ${IMAGE_ROOTFS_ALIGNMENT}; print ((base_size > >> ${IMAGE_ROOTFS_SIZE} ? base_size : ${IMAGE_ROOTFS_SIZE}) + >> ${IMAGE_ROOTFS_EXTRA_SPACE}) }'` >> + ROOTFS_SIZE=`du -ks ${IMAGE_ROOTFS}|awk '{base_size = $1 * >> ${IMAGE_OVERHEAD_FACTOR}; print ((base_size > ${IMAGE_ROOTFS_SIZE} ? >> base_size : ${IMAGE_ROOTFS_SIZE}) + ${IMAGE_ROOTFS_EXTRA_SPACE}) }'` >> + >> + # Round up ROOTFS_SIZE to IMAGE_ROOTFS_ALIGNMENT >> + ROOTFS_SIZE=`awk "BEGIN { rootfs_size = $ROOTFS_SIZE + >> ${IMAGE_ROOTFS_ALIGNMENT} - 1; rootfs_size -= rootfs_size % >> ${IMAGE_ROOTFS_ALIGNMENT}; print rootfs_size }"` >> + >> > > > AWK seems a little heavy weight here, now we are forking it twice, since > we are already in awk above, can you not just continue the function from > there instead, maybe with a END{} or something else? > > So, to be sure i understood. You want to have the whole routine in the same awk right? I did it this way to make those steps a little clearer. But indeed, this is a good idea in terms of performance. Also will this guarantee an Integer result? > Will fix in V3. :) Branch updated with v3. ag
_______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core