On Fri, 2011-10-14 at 12:47 +0200, Anders Darander wrote:
> * Anders Darander <and...@chargestorm.se> [111014 09:55]:
> > In our local tree, I've circumvented this race by applying a patch like
> > [3]. (Well, we could likely have put the lock in do_make_scripts()
> > instead of module_do_compile(), as we have done currently). Obviously,
> > I'm not proposing to apply this patch, as it depends on lockfile from
> > the procmail-package (host-package).
>
> Just to confirm, it seems (after a very few tests) that it indeed is
> enough to guard the do_make_scripts() with the lock.
>
> However, the question on how to make the real solution remains...
I've not tested this but it might give you enough info to test
something:
(Basic idea is to promote that function to a task, then apply a lock to
it).
diff --git a/meta/classes/module.bbclass b/meta/classes/module.bbclass
index 572df0d..5602e74 100644
--- a/meta/classes/module.bbclass
+++ b/meta/classes/module.bbclass
@@ -14,8 +14,10 @@ do_make_scripts() {
-C ${STAGING_KERNEL_DIR} scripts
}
+addtask make_scripts before compile
+do_make_scripts[lockfiles] = "${TMPDIR}/kernel-scripts.lock"
+
module_do_compile() {
- do_make_scripts
unset CFLAGS CPPFLAGS CXXFLAGS LDFLAGS
oe_runmake KERNEL_PATH=${STAGING_KERNEL_DIR} \
KERNEL_SRC=${STAGING_KERNEL_DIR} \
Cheers,
Richard
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
