[OE-core] [PATCH] [RFC]kernel-yocto.bbclass: ensure repatching when HEAD is checked out

[Belal, Awais]

Hi Bruce,

> If this works for you, I can send it in my next kernel pull request.
Works like a charm, thanks a lot :)

BR,
Awais

________________________________________
From: Bruce Ashfield [bruce.ashfield at gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, February 3, 2017 11:20 PM
To: Belal, Awais
Cc: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer
Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCH] [RFC]kernel-yocto.bbclass: ensure repatching when HEAD is checked out

Here's the patch that I came up with based on your change. The only difference
is that I modified the patching script to have a --clean option .. and used that
instead. That way we keep the internals hidden.

If this works for you, I can send it in my next kernel pull request.

Bruce

On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 9:16 AM, Bruce Ashfield <bruce.ashfield at gmail.com<mailto:bruce.ashfield at gmail.com>> wrote:


On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 5:49 AM, Awais Belal <awais_belal at mentor.com<mailto:awais_belal at mentor.com>> wrote:
In some cases it is seen that kernel_checkout and
validate_branches are run again in simultaneous builds.
During do_patch the kgit-s2q mechanism creates and
checks for the kgit-s2q.last file inside the .git
directory, finds a fence post and starts picking up
patches after that. This can create trouble as
validate_branches checks out the HEAD of the branch
and so the patches should be reapplied rather than
skipped due to finding of the fence post.

Indeed. I can see how this could happen. I added the mechanism to ensure
that multiple runs (forced or not) didn't re-patch the tree (since the tools no
longer do an auto-resume detection).

At that time, I tried to run the paths and make sure that the sentinel file
couldn't cause this sort of problem, but clearly there is a case.

I'll grab this patch and modify it a bit so the script can clear the file itself
(that way if the format changes again, we don't have to tweak the bbclass).

I'll float that patch by you, if that is ok, so you can add a Signed-off-by
(since the work on finding the issue deserves credit on the patch itself).

Cheers,

Bruce


Signed-off-by: Awais Belal <awais_belal at mentor.com<mailto:awais_belal at mentor.com>>
---
 meta/classes/kernel-yocto.bbclass | 4 ++++
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)

diff --git a/meta/classes/kernel-yocto.bb<http://kernel-yocto.bb>class b/meta/classes/kernel-yocto.bb<http://kernel-yocto.bb>class
index 5cfd8af..131c48a 100644
--- a/meta/classes/kernel-yocto.bb<http://kernel-yocto.bb>class
+++ b/meta/classes/kernel-yocto.bb<http://kernel-yocto.bb>class
@@ -350,6 +350,10 @@ do_validate_branches() {
                        current_branch=`git rev-parse --abbrev-ref HEAD`
                        git branch "$current_branch-orig"
                        git reset --hard ${force_srcrev}
+                       # We've checked out HEAD, make sure we cleanup kgit-s2q fence post check
+                       # so the patches are applied as expected otherwise no patching
+                       # would be done in some corner cases.
+                       rm -rf ${S}/.git/kgit-s2q.last
                fi
        fi
 }
--
1.9.1

--
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core at lists.openembedded.org<mailto:Openembedded-core at lists.openembedded.org>
http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core



--
"Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await thee at its end"



--
"Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await thee at its end"