On 16-01-20 6:29 PM, Ming Liu wrote:
On 01/20/2016 05:43 AM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
On 2016-01-19 4:57 PM, Ming Liu wrote:
On 01/19/2016 08:39 PM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
On 16-01-05 08:12 AM, Ming Liu wrote:
From: Ming Liu <peter.x....@external.atlascopco.com>
It makes no sense to install a initramfs bundled kernel image since
do_package does not depend on do_bundle_initramfs at all,
otherwise, it
leads to a implicit kernel-image package depending on do_package run
before
or after do_bundle_initramfs.
Again. So why not just add the ordering in the task dependencies ?
If we add a intertask dependency like:
add bundle_initramfs before do_install after do_deploy do_package
Then it will somehow introduce a circular dependency as I described in
another mail.
I'm probably missing something, which just means we need to tweak
the commit log a bit more.
Maybe I should add some description in commit log about why I think we
could not introduce a intertask dependency as a fix.
That would be ideal, the more information the better.
The code you are removing is conditional, and is run after an
explicit kernel_do_compile is called, to rebuild the existing
kernel configuration with an embedded initramfs (via alternate initrd).
So outside of some ordering/parallel execution issues, I'm not seeing
it as broken.
Yes, I agree, it will not break the kernel re-compiling, the problem I
want to fix here is just that it does not provide a certain way that we
could add initramfs bundled kernel image into a rootfs.
Speaking of breaking. What happens to existing users of INITRAMFS_IMAGE?
Do their existing image types and bundling continue to work without
modification ?
That depends, the existing users always can find the INITRAMFS_IMAGE
bundled kernel in DEPLOY_DIR with or without my patches, it is not
broken. But if they want it installed in the rootfs, for some reasons,
they will have the problem, like in my company, we want to boot the
kernel from /boot/ on a USB disk, but it is not guaranteed we will get
the INITRAMFS_IMAGE bundled kernel there during the build.
Right. And if someone isn't doing any initramfs bundling, is there
any impact ? No variables to change, etc ?
I'd suggest double checking meta-initramfs:
http://layers.openembedded.org/layerindex/branch/master/layer/meta-initramfs/
And checking with Andrea to be sure that none of the existing use
cases are broken.
Bruce
//Ming Liu
Bruce
//Ming Liu
Bruce
Signed-off-by: Ming Liu <peter.x....@external.atlascopco.com>
---
meta/classes/kernel.bbclass | 4 ----
1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/meta/classes/kernel.bbclass b/meta/classes/kernel.bbclass
index 4ce1611..d1ca614 100644
--- a/meta/classes/kernel.bbclass
+++ b/meta/classes/kernel.bbclass
@@ -179,10 +179,6 @@ do_bundle_initramfs () {
kernel_do_compile
mv -f ${KERNEL_OUTPUT} ${KERNEL_OUTPUT}.initramfs
mv -f ${KERNEL_OUTPUT}.bak ${KERNEL_OUTPUT}
- # Update install area
- echo "There is kernel image bundled with initramfs:
${B}/${KERNEL_OUTPUT}.initramfs"
- install -m 0644 ${B}/${KERNEL_OUTPUT}.initramfs
${D}/boot/${KERNEL_IMAGETYPE}-initramfs-${MACHINE}.bin
- echo "${B}/${KERNEL_OUTPUT}.initramfs"
fi
}
--
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
