On 2016-01-19 4:37 PM, Ming Liu wrote:
On 01/19/2016 08:34 PM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
On 16-01-05 08:12 AM, Ming Liu wrote:
In current initramfs bundled kernel packaging policy, there are several
dependency chains co-existing:
| "core-image-minimal.do_build" ->
"core-image-minimal.do_bundle_initramfs"
| "core-image-minimal.do_bundle_initramfs" ->
"virtual/kernel.do_bundle_initramfs"
| "core-image-minimal.do_bundle_initramfs" ->
"core-image-minimal.do_rootfs"
In current master, the above dependency should now be
do_image_complete, correct ?
Yes, now it has been changed to do_image_complete.
| "core-image-minimal.do_rootfs" ->
"virtual/kernel.do_package_write_${IMAGE_PKGTYPE}"
And for the one above here, I'm not seeing this dependency. Are you
saying that it comes via the do_image_complete dependency ?
It comes from the "recrdeptask" flag in image bbclass, for instance,
meta/classes/rootfs_rpm.bbclass, it has:
do_rootfs[recrdeptask] += "do_package_write_rpm"
this makes sure that do_rootfs task of a certain image would run after
do_package_write_rpm of all its DEPENDS and RDEPENDS, recursively.
| "virtual/kernel.do_package_write_${IMAGE_PKGTYPE}" ->
"virtual/kernel.do_package"
| "virtual/kernel.do_package" -> "virtual/kernel.do_install"
|
| "virtual/kernel.do_deploy" -> "virtual/kernel.do_bundle_initramfs"
| "virtual/kernel.do_bundle_initramfs" -> "virtual/kernel.do_install"
I'm somehow missing the above dependency as well. I suppose I could dump
out the dot file, but I'd like to hear it explained here as well. Since
if I can't get the dependency from the text of the commits, it will
become hard to maintain.
They are intertask dependencies, I still take RPM as a example:
meta/classes/package_rpm.bbclass:addtask package_write_rpm after
do_packagedata do_package
meta/classes/kernel.bbclass:addtask bundle_initramfs after do_install
before do_deploy
We could see, virtual/kernel.do_package is not explicitly depending on
virtual/kernel.do_bundle_initramfs so far, therefore, there is not a
workable way to add initramfs bundled kernel image into rootfs, because
kernel's do_bundle_initramfs could run parallelly with its do_package,
which means we will get a implicit kernel-image package that
sometimes it
contains the initramfs bundled kernel or sometimes it doesn't.
I do see what you are describing above. If we've defined
INITRAMFS_IMAGE, the anonymous python in kernel.bbclass does make
the kernel's do_bundle_initramfs depend on the initramfs image's
do_image_complete.
Why not just add a task dependency ?
Do you mean adding a task dependency between package and
As long as we've built the kernel + modules and also built the
initramfs image, we have everything we need to bundle the kernel and
initramfs.
.. but yes, if it wasn't package, it would have to be the compile
phase, and the circular dependency is the same.
bundle_initramfs in kernel recipe? But that would introduce a circular
dependency issue as described in commit log of
609d5a9ab9e58bb1c2bcc2145399fbc8b701b85a, under following conditions:
1 Some kernel modules have been added into INITRAMFS_IMAGE.
2 INITRAMFS_IMAGE has been bundled into kernel image
3 kernel-image package has been added into IMAGE_INSTALL.
Agreed.
To fix this problem, the idea is to let the initramfs bundled kernel
packaging depend on do_bundle_initramfs, meanwhile, to avoid the
circular
dependency issue that commit: 609d5a9ab9e58bb1c2bcc2145399fbc8b701b85a
[ kernel.bbclass, image.bbclass: Implement kernel INITRAMFS
dependency and bundling ]
But here's my issue. We know that the INITRAMFS image cannot contain,
or depend on a kernel itself. So the dependency won't be circular.
It is true that we don't enforce that, but that has always been stated
in the commits that created the bundling.
Is it that condition you are trying to enforce with the split ?
I know that the users are not allowed to add kernel itself into a
INITRAMFS_IMAGE meanwhile bundle it into kernel, which will certainly
create a circular dependency. The split was not trying to resolve that
condition, but to fix a implicit kernel-image package without
introducing any circular dependencies.
Right.
Bruce
//Ming Liu
Bruce
was trying to address, this dependency has to be splitted from kernel
recipe(at least, I could not figure out another way to achieve it), so a
new kernel-initramfs is introduced, in which a dependency chain is
created:
| "kernel-initramfs.do_install" -> "virtual/kernel.do_deploy"
| "virtual/kernel.do_deploy" -> "virtual/kernel.do_bundle_initramfs"
Then the users can add initramfs bundled kernel image into rootfs by:
IMAGE_INSTALL_append = " kernel-initramfs"
without introducing any circular dependencies.
Ming Liu (3):
kernel.bbclass: do not install initramfs bundled kernel image
image.bbclass: removes bundle_initramfs related code
kernel-initramfs: new recipe, creates initramfs bundled kernel
packaging
meta/classes/image.bbclass | 11 -----
meta/classes/kernel.bbclass | 4 --
meta/recipes-kernel/linux/kernel-initramfs.bb | 69
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3 files changed, 69 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 meta/recipes-kernel/linux/kernel-initramfs.bb
--
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
