On 05/26/2011 11:04 AM, Joshua Lock wrote:
On Mon, 2011-05-23 at 23:38 -0700, Saul Wold wrote:
[YOCTO #886]
This address 2 needs after the IMAGE_ROOTFS_SIZE is cleaned up, by
removing some of the _ext2/3 overrides it allows for a cleaner override
using IMAGE_ROOTFS_SIZE to create a large rootfs, or by setting the
IMAGE_ROOTFS_EXTRA_SPACE, will allow for extra space allocated in Kilobytes
above the base size (determined by du of the rootfs * IMAGE_OVERHEAD_FACTOR,
default of 1.3).
Signed-off-by: Saul Wold<s...@linux.intel.com>
---
meta/classes/image_types.bbclass | 2 +-
meta/conf/bitbake.conf | 4 ++++
2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/meta/classes/image_types.bbclass b/meta/classes/image_types.bbclass
index 69f859e..601a5fb 100644
--- a/meta/classes/image_types.bbclass
+++ b/meta/classes/image_types.bbclass
@@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ def get_imagecmds(d):
runimagecmd () {
# Image generation code for image type ${type}
- ROOTFS_SIZE=`du -ks ${IMAGE_ROOTFS}|awk '{size = $1 *
${IMAGE_OVERHEAD_FACTOR}; print (size> ${IMAGE_ROOTFS_SIZE} ? size :
${IMAGE_ROOTFS_SIZE}) }'`
+ ROOTFS_SIZE=`du -ks ${IMAGE_ROOTFS}|awk '{size = $1 *
${IMAGE_OVERHEAD_FACTOR} + ${IMAGE_ROOTFS_EXTRA_SPACE}; print (size>
${IMAGE_ROOTFS_SIZE} ? size : ${IMAGE_ROOTFS_SIZE}) }'`
${cmd}
cd ${DEPLOY_DIR_IMAGE}/
rm -f ${DEPLOY_DIR_IMAGE}/${IMAGE_LINK_NAME}.${type}
diff --git a/meta/conf/bitbake.conf b/meta/conf/bitbake.conf
index a0af672..fa3618c 100644
--- a/meta/conf/bitbake.conf
+++ b/meta/conf/bitbake.conf
@@ -350,6 +350,10 @@ IMAGE_LINK_NAME = "${IMAGE_BASENAME}-${MACHINE}"
# This option allows for a precentage overage of the actaul image size rather
than a
# fixed extra space
IMAGE_OVERHEAD_FACTOR ?= 1.3
+# This option allow for adding addition space in K above and beyond what the
+# IMAGE_OVERHEAD_FACTOR might add. To set a fixed size then overrideing
IMAGE_ROOTFS_SIZE
+# with the max size one wants should do the trick
+IMAGE_OVERHEAD_EXTRA_SPACE = "0"
This appears to be a different variable to the IMAGE_ROOTFS_EXTRA_SPACE
used in the command above? Also, you've done a hard assignment here.
Shouldn't it be a soft (?=) assignment?
Yes, I fixed the OVERHEAD vs ROOTFS already, noticed that during post
RFC testing. I did not see the soft (?=) problem, but agree it needs to
be fixed.
Sau!
Cheers,
Joshua
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
