Re: [yocto] RFC: Backwards compatibility checking sstate-cache

2017-10-12 Thread Michael Ho
t: 21 September 2017 18:11 To: Michael Ho; yocto@yoctoproject.org Subject: Re: [yocto] RFC: Backwards compatibility checking sstate-cache On Fri, 2017-06-30 at 09:48 +, Michael Ho wrote: > Hi, at BMW Car IT we are working on an experimental feature to > improve sstate cache hits and we

Re: [yocto] RFC: Backwards compatibility checking sstate-cache

2017-09-25 Thread Mike Looijmans
On 23-09-17 00:51, Joshua Lock wrote: On 22/09/17 15:00, Mike Looijmans wrote: I think this remark in the referenced link is the best summary of "what could be improved": """the biggest weakness of the sstate signature bits, in my opinion, is that it only tracks inputs, not outputs. If task

Re: [yocto] RFC: Backwards compatibility checking sstate-cache

2017-09-22 Thread Joshua Lock
On 22/09/17 15:00, Mike Looijmans wrote: I think this remark in the referenced link is the best summary of "what could be improved": """the biggest weakness of the sstate signature bits, in my opinion, is that it only tracks inputs, not outputs. If task A depends on B, and the metadata input

Re: [yocto] RFC: Backwards compatibility checking sstate-cache

2017-09-22 Thread Mike Looijmans
I think this remark in the referenced link is the best summary of "what could be improved": """the biggest weakness of the sstate signature bits, in my opinion, is that it only tracks inputs, not outputs. If task A depends on B, and the metadata input to B changes, then A will be rebuilt, eve

Re: [yocto] RFC: Backwards compatibility checking sstate-cache

2017-09-21 Thread Richard Purdie
On Fri, 2017-06-30 at 09:48 +, Michael Ho wrote: > Hi, at BMW Car IT we are working on an experimental feature to > improve sstate cache hits and we are looking for comments on the > approach who might have some insights to the problem and seeing if > anyone is interested in the feature for mai

Re: [yocto] RFC: Backwards compatibility checking sstate-cache

2017-07-01 Thread Martin Jansa
I haven't tried the patches, but I really like this idea (I was suggesting something like that since 2011 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.handhelds.openembedded.core/10327) and I'm glad you weren't discouraged attempting to do this. It also implements 3) b) idea from https://bugzilla.yoctopr

Re: [yocto] RFC: Backwards compatibility checking sstate-cache

2017-06-30 Thread Michael Ho
- From: Darcy Watkins Sent: 30 June 2017 17:01 To: Michael Ho Cc: yocto@yoctoproject.org Subject: Re: [yocto] RFC: Backwards compatibility checking sstate-cache   Hi, It would also be nice to add some sort of hook script support where user supplied hook script performs a check and retu

Re: [yocto] RFC: Backwards compatibility checking sstate-cache

2017-06-30 Thread Darcy Watkins
Hi, It would also be nice to add some sort of hook script support where user supplied hook script performs a check and returns either a "yes it's OK" or a "no have to rebuild it" status. And then tie that into the dependency logic. I have unusual use case where I need to have a dependency on c

[yocto] RFC: Backwards compatibility checking sstate-cache

2017-06-30 Thread Michael Ho
Hi, at BMW Car IT we are working on an experimental feature to improve sstate cache hits and we are looking for comments on the approach who might have some insights to the problem and seeing if anyone is interested in the feature for mainline. The sstate-cache of a recipe is tied closely to its b