Re: [oe] [PATCH 2/2] iscsitarget: skip the arch test for kernel modules
> -Original Message- > From: Joe MacDonald [mailto:joe_macdon...@mentor.com] > Sent: Friday, March 04, 2016 12:17 AM > To: Huang, Jie (Jackie) > Cc: openembedded-devel > Subject: Re: [oe] [PATCH 2/2] iscsitarget: skip the arch test for kernel > modules > > Hi Jackie, > > [Re: [oe] [PATCH 2/2] iscsitarget: skip the arch test for kernel modules] On > 16.03.03 (Thu 04:41) Huang, > Jie (Jackie) wrote: > > > > On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 3:27 AM, wrote: > > > From: Jackie Huang > > > > > > Kernel modules may not have the same architecture as user space. > > > So we tell INSANE_SKIP to skip checking the arch for the modules. > > > This is consistent with other kernel modules and the kernel recipe. > > > > > > This one still hasn't been merged and since iscsitarget is currently > > > unbuildable, > > > I'm not in a rush to merge this one particularly since I'm not really > > > clear on the > > > logic underlying the change. I searched the archives and found your > > > response to > > > Martin was essentially "see my netmap-modules patch for an explanation" > > > and in that > > > one the explanation was basically "this is the way other kernel modules > > > do it". > > > > I think I meant to refer to this one which is not merged either: > > commit 6727154c929f3dc8ed86bab29aa1de88620906e9 > > Author: Jackie Huang > > Date: Tue Nov 17 01:44:47 2015 -0800 > > > > netmap-modules: skip the arch check for kernel module > > > > When building on a multilib capable BSP, it's possible for the > > kernel bit size to be different than the userspace. Avoid the > > QA test when building the kernel module. > > > > Signed-off-by: Jackie Huang > > > > sorry that if the explanation is not clear enough. > > > > > I merged that one but now I'm thinking I shouldn't have without more > > > careful consideration. > > > > The one you merged is "netmap-modules: Modules may not have the same arch > > as userspace" > > and Mark helped to split and re-word the commit message like what it is now. > > Okay, so at least I am looking at what I think I'm looking at. > > > > Am I correct in thinking that this problem only shows up when you're > > > building for multilib? > > > > We have BSPs with a 64 bit kernel + modules + 32 bit userspace by default, > > the > > problem always show up when we're building such BSP, and we have a bbclass > > to > > add INSANE_SKIP for internal modules: > > > > # sanity updates. The do_package_qa_prepend and vmlinux sanity > > # flags allow a 64 bit kernel + modules to be packaged against a > > # 32 bit userspace. If external modules are built, they must supply > > # their own INSANE_SKIP_ = "arch" if they want to be properly > > # packaged. > > python do_package_qa_prepend () { > > I guess in this case you mean it's a bbclass that's internal to Wind Yes. > River, I did a quick search and couldn't find the code you reference above > anywhere in my poky tree. > > > > I've reverted "netmap-modules: Modules may not have the same arch as > > > userspace" in my contrib > > > tree at > > > http://git.openembedded.org/meta-openembedded-contrib/log/?h=joeythesaint/meta- > networking-next > > > and my initial test builds showed no QA issues related to netmap-modules > > > and the arch checks. > > > So I started looking around for other kernel modules doing something > > > similar and I don't actually > > > see this "INSANE_SKIP_kernel-module-*" construct being used anywhere else > > > in meta-oe or poky > > > (and at the least I would expect something like cryptodev-module to need > > > it, it looks like an > > > analogue to me). Can you fill me in on what's special with iscsitarget > > > and netmap, because > > > even if it is a multilib issue, why wouldn't that be showing up for other > > > kernel modules built > > > in poky? > > > > That's because there is no such BSP like I mentioned above in poky, I > > undersatand if this is not accpeted, we may add this in our own layer. > > I think that's best, since otherwise the you'll be submitting these > changes for any external module to support a use-case that we don't have > in Yocto and there's no obvious corresponding behaviour in poky. Ok, I see, thanks! Thanks, Jackie > > Thanks. > > -- > -Joe MacDonald. > :wq -- ___ Openembedded-devel mailing list Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
Re: [oe] [PATCH 2/2] iscsitarget: skip the arch test for kernel modules
Hi Jackie, [Re: [oe] [PATCH 2/2] iscsitarget: skip the arch test for kernel modules] On 16.03.03 (Thu 04:41) Huang, Jie (Jackie) wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 3:27 AM, wrote: > > From: Jackie Huang > > > > Kernel modules may not have the same architecture as user space. > > So we tell INSANE_SKIP to skip checking the arch for the modules. > > This is consistent with other kernel modules and the kernel recipe. > > > > This one still hasn't been merged and since iscsitarget is currently > > unbuildable, > > I'm not in a rush to merge this one particularly since I'm not really clear > > on the > > logic underlying the change. I searched the archives and found your > > response to > > Martin was essentially "see my netmap-modules patch for an explanation" and > > in that > > one the explanation was basically "this is the way other kernel modules do > > it". > > I think I meant to refer to this one which is not merged either: > commit 6727154c929f3dc8ed86bab29aa1de88620906e9 > Author: Jackie Huang > Date: Tue Nov 17 01:44:47 2015 -0800 > > netmap-modules: skip the arch check for kernel module > > When building on a multilib capable BSP, it's possible for the > kernel bit size to be different than the userspace. Avoid the > QA test when building the kernel module. > > Signed-off-by: Jackie Huang > > sorry that if the explanation is not clear enough. > > > I merged that one but now I'm thinking I shouldn't have without more > > careful consideration. > > The one you merged is "netmap-modules: Modules may not have the same arch as > userspace" > and Mark helped to split and re-word the commit message like what it is now. Okay, so at least I am looking at what I think I'm looking at. > > Am I correct in thinking that this problem only shows up when you're > > building for multilib? > > We have BSPs with a 64 bit kernel + modules + 32 bit userspace by default, the > problem always show up when we're building such BSP, and we have a bbclass to > add INSANE_SKIP for internal modules: > > # sanity updates. The do_package_qa_prepend and vmlinux sanity > # flags allow a 64 bit kernel + modules to be packaged against a > # 32 bit userspace. If external modules are built, they must supply > # their own INSANE_SKIP_ = "arch" if they want to be properly > # packaged. > python do_package_qa_prepend () { I guess in this case you mean it's a bbclass that's internal to Wind River, I did a quick search and couldn't find the code you reference above anywhere in my poky tree. > > I've reverted "netmap-modules: Modules may not have the same arch as > > userspace" in my contrib > > tree at > > http://git.openembedded.org/meta-openembedded-contrib/log/?h=joeythesaint/meta-networking-next > > > > and my initial test builds showed no QA issues related to netmap-modules > > and the arch checks. > > So I started looking around for other kernel modules doing something > > similar and I don't actually > > see this "INSANE_SKIP_kernel-module-*" construct being used anywhere else > > in meta-oe or poky > > (and at the least I would expect something like cryptodev-module to need > > it, it looks like an > > analogue to me). Can you fill me in on what's special with iscsitarget and > > netmap, because > > even if it is a multilib issue, why wouldn't that be showing up for other > > kernel modules built > > in poky? > > That's because there is no such BSP like I mentioned above in poky, I > undersatand if this is not accpeted, we may add this in our own layer. I think that's best, since otherwise the you'll be submitting these changes for any external module to support a use-case that we don't have in Yocto and there's no obvious corresponding behaviour in poky. Thanks. -- -Joe MacDonald. :wq signature.asc Description: Digital signature -- ___ Openembedded-devel mailing list Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
Re: [oe] [PATCH 2/2] iscsitarget: skip the arch test for kernel modules
> > > On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 3:27 AM, wrote: > From: Jackie Huang > > Kernel modules may not have the same architecture as user space. > So we tell INSANE_SKIP to skip checking the arch for the modules. > This is consistent with other kernel modules and the kernel recipe. > > This one still hasn't been merged and since iscsitarget is currently > unbuildable, > I'm not in a rush to merge this one particularly since I'm not really clear > on the > logic underlying the change. I searched the archives and found your response > to > Martin was essentially "see my netmap-modules patch for an explanation" and > in that > one the explanation was basically "this is the way other kernel modules do > it". I think I meant to refer to this one which is not merged either: commit 6727154c929f3dc8ed86bab29aa1de88620906e9 Author: Jackie Huang Date: Tue Nov 17 01:44:47 2015 -0800 netmap-modules: skip the arch check for kernel module When building on a multilib capable BSP, it's possible for the kernel bit size to be different than the userspace. Avoid the QA test when building the kernel module. Signed-off-by: Jackie Huang sorry that if the explanation is not clear enough. > I merged that one but now I'm thinking I shouldn't have without more careful > consideration. The one you merged is "netmap-modules: Modules may not have the same arch as userspace" and Mark helped to split and re-word the commit message like what it is now. > Am I correct in thinking that this problem only shows up when you're building > for multilib? We have BSPs with a 64 bit kernel + modules + 32 bit userspace by default, the problem always show up when we're building such BSP, and we have a bbclass to add INSANE_SKIP for internal modules: # sanity updates. The do_package_qa_prepend and vmlinux sanity # flags allow a 64 bit kernel + modules to be packaged against a # 32 bit userspace. If external modules are built, they must supply # their own INSANE_SKIP_ = "arch" if they want to be properly # packaged. python do_package_qa_prepend () { > I've reverted "netmap-modules: Modules may not have the same arch as > userspace" in my contrib > tree at > http://git.openembedded.org/meta-openembedded-contrib/log/?h=joeythesaint/meta-networking-next > > and my initial test builds showed no QA issues related to netmap-modules and > the arch checks. > So I started looking around for other kernel modules doing something similar > and I don't actually > see this "INSANE_SKIP_kernel-module-*" construct being used anywhere else in > meta-oe or poky > (and at the least I would expect something like cryptodev-module to need it, > it looks like an > analogue to me). Can you fill me in on what's special with iscsitarget and > netmap, because > even if it is a multilib issue, why wouldn't that be showing up for other > kernel modules built > in poky? That's because there is no such BSP like I mentioned above in poky, I undersatand if this is not accpeted, we may add this in our own layer. Thanks, Jackie > > Thanks. > > -J. > > > Signed-off-by: Jackie Huang > --- > .../recipes-extended/iscsitarget/iscsitarget_1.4.20.3+svn502.bb| 3 > +++ > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > diff --git > a/meta-networking/recipes-extended/iscsitarget/iscsitarget_1.4.20.3+svn502.bb > b/meta-networking/recipes-extended/iscsitarget/iscsitarget_1.4.20.3+svn502.bb > index 9d49759..9db16bc 100644 > --- > a/meta-networking/recipes-extended/iscsitarget/iscsitarget_1.4.20.3+svn502.bb > +++ > b/meta-networking/recipes-extended/iscsitarget/iscsitarget_1.4.20.3+svn502.bb > @@ -54,3 +54,6 @@ FILES_${PN} += "${sbindir} \ > > RDEPENDS_${PN} = "kernel-module-iscsi-trgt" > RRECOMMENDS_${PN} = "kernel-module-crc32c kernel-module-libcrc32c" > + > +# Skip the arch test for kernel modules > +INSANE_SKIP_kernel-module-iscsi-trgt = "arch" > -- > 2.3.5 > > -- > ___ > Openembedded-devel mailing list > Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org > http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel > > > > > -- > Joe MacDonald > :wq > -- ___ Openembedded-devel mailing list Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
Re: [oe] [PATCH 2/2] iscsitarget: skip the arch test for kernel modules
On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 3:27 AM, wrote: > From: Jackie Huang > > Kernel modules may not have the same architecture as user space. > So we tell INSANE_SKIP to skip checking the arch for the modules. > This is consistent with other kernel modules and the kernel recipe. > This one still hasn't been merged and since iscsitarget is currently unbuildable, I'm not in a rush to merge this one particularly since I'm not really clear on the logic underlying the change. I searched the archives and found your response to Martin was essentially "see my netmap-modules patch for an explanation" and in that one the explanation was basically "this is the way other kernel modules do it". I merged that one but now I'm thinking I shouldn't have without more careful consideration. Am I correct in thinking that this problem only shows up when you're building for multilib? I've reverted "netmap-modules: Modules may not have the same arch as userspace" in my contrib tree at http://git.openembedded.org/meta-openembedded-contrib/log/?h=joeythesaint/meta-networking-next and my initial test builds showed no QA issues related to netmap-modules and the arch checks. So I started looking around for other kernel modules doing something similar and I don't actually see this "INSANE_SKIP_kernel-module-*" construct being used anywhere else in meta-oe or poky (and at the least I would expect something like cryptodev-module to need it, it looks like an analogue to me). Can you fill me in on what's special with iscsitarget and netmap, because even if it is a multilib issue, why wouldn't that be showing up for other kernel modules built in poky? Thanks. -J. > > Signed-off-by: Jackie Huang > --- > .../recipes-extended/iscsitarget/iscsitarget_1.4.20.3+svn502.bb| > 3 +++ > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > diff --git > a/meta-networking/recipes-extended/iscsitarget/iscsitarget_1.4.20.3+ > svn502.bb > b/meta-networking/recipes-extended/iscsitarget/iscsitarget_1.4.20.3+ > svn502.bb > index 9d49759..9db16bc 100644 > --- a/meta-networking/recipes-extended/iscsitarget/iscsitarget_1.4.20.3+ > svn502.bb > +++ b/meta-networking/recipes-extended/iscsitarget/iscsitarget_1.4.20.3+ > svn502.bb > @@ -54,3 +54,6 @@ FILES_${PN} += "${sbindir} \ > > RDEPENDS_${PN} = "kernel-module-iscsi-trgt" > RRECOMMENDS_${PN} = "kernel-module-crc32c kernel-module-libcrc32c" > + > +# Skip the arch test for kernel modules > +INSANE_SKIP_kernel-module-iscsi-trgt = "arch" > -- > 2.3.5 > > -- > ___ > Openembedded-devel mailing list > Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org > http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel > -- Joe MacDonald :wq -- ___ Openembedded-devel mailing list Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
Re: [oe] [PATCH 2/2] iscsitarget: skip the arch test for kernel modules
Op 25-11-15 om 09:27 schreef jackie.hu...@windriver.com: > From: Jackie Huang > > Kernel modules may not have the same architecture as user space. LOL > So we tell INSANE_SKIP to skip checking the arch for the modules. > This is consistent with other kernel modules and the kernel recipe. Split this recipe in 2: one recipe for userspace, the other for kernel space. -- ___ Openembedded-devel mailing list Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel