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