Re: [bitbake-devel] noexec varflag behavior vs documentation?

Re: [bitbake-devel] noexec varflag behavior vs documentation?

[Konrad Weihmann]

On 26.10.21 17:57, Scott Murray wrote:
> As I brought up on the dev call earlier, the task noexec varflag
> documentation says:
> 
> * [noexec]: When set to “1”, marks the task as being empty, with no
> execution required. You can use the [noexec] flag to set up tasks as
> dependency placeholders, or to disable tasks defined elsewhere that are
> not needed in a particular recipe.
> 
> (from:
> https://docs.yoctoproject.org/bitbake/bitbake-user-manual/bitbake-user-manual-metadata.html?highlight=noexec#variable-flags)
> 
> However, as I discovered yesterday, the reality is that it being set to
> any value at all disables execution, which Richard mentioned on the dev
> call helps with performance.  The question Richard asked me to bring here
> is whether the documentation should be updated, or if the behavior should
> be changed to match it?  I do not have a strong opinion either way, but
> would like this resolved somehow to avoid others spending time scratching
> their heads like I did for a bit yesterday.

As I stumbled upon the very same, I'd love to see the docu being updated 
- I mean implicitly it already does that as noexec can be only 
deactivated by putting no value in it - but both cases should be 
properly documented IMO

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Scott
> 
> 
> 
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
> View/Reply Online (#12833): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/bitbake-devel/message/12833
> Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/86606339/3647476
> Group Owner: bitbake-devel+owner@lists.openembedded.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/bitbake-devel/unsub [kweihmann@outlook.com]
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> 

Re: [bitbake-devel] noexec varflag behavior vs documentation?

[Scott Murray]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2890 bytes --]

On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 6:44 PM Richard Purdie <
richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 2021-10-26 at 23:23 +0100, Richard Purdie via
> lists.openembedded.org
> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2021-10-26 at 15:54 -0400, Scott Murray wrote:
> > > On Tue, 26 Oct 2021, Konrad Weihmann wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 26.10.21 17:57, Scott Murray wrote:
> > > > > As I brought up on the dev call earlier, the task noexec varflag
> > > > > documentation says:
> > > > >
> > > > > * [noexec]: When set to “1”, marks the task as being empty, with no
> > > > > execution required. You can use the [noexec] flag to set up tasks
> as
> > > > > dependency placeholders, or to disable tasks defined elsewhere
> that are
> > > > > not needed in a particular recipe.
> > > > >
> > > > > (from:
> > > > >
> https://docs.yoctoproject.org/bitbake/bitbake-user-manual/bitbake-user-manual-metadata.html?highlight=noexec#variable-flags
> )
> > > > >
> > > > > However, as I discovered yesterday, the reality is that it being
> set to
> > > > > any value at all disables execution, which Richard mentioned on
> the dev
> > > > > call helps with performance.  The question Richard asked me to
> bring here
> > > > > is whether the documentation should be updated, or if the behavior
> should
> > > > > be changed to match it?  I do not have a strong opinion either
> way, but
> > > > > would like this resolved somehow to avoid others spending time
> scratching
> > > > > their heads like I did for a bit yesterday.
> > > >
> > > > As I stumbled upon the very same, I'd love to see the docu being
> updated - I
> > > > mean implicitly it already does that as noexec can be only
> deactivated by
> > > > putting no value in it - but both cases should be properly
> documented IMO
> > >
> > > Chris mentioned to me OOB this existing Bugzilla:
> > >
> > > https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13808
> > >
> > > I don't see the discussed deprecation warning change in master,
> though, so
> > > I'm guessing it got dropped.
> >
> >
> http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/poky/commit/?id=66f22c0bd19a81ee7ccb49543f24a4f90fc012ba
> >
> > Is that code working?
>
> I did check and with do_compile[noexec] = "0" in the bash recipe, I see:
>
> WARNING: /xxx/meta/recipes-extended/bash/bash_5.1.8.bb: In a future
> version of BitBake, setting the 'noexec' flag to something other than '1'
> will result in the flag not being set. See YP bug #13808
>
> so it does appear to.
>

Yes, I did just try it here as well.  I've been working on dunfell and
missed it in master
when I looked through git grep, my apologies.  I guess there's still the
questions of
just when the deprecation takes effect and if anything should be done with
respect to
the documentation in the meantime (since it could IMO be argued it's
incorrect ATM).

Scott

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4411 bytes --]

Re: [bitbake-devel] noexec varflag behavior vs documentation?

[Quentin Schulz]

Hi all,

On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 06:52:13PM -0400, Scott Murray wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 6:44 PM Richard Purdie <
> richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 2021-10-26 at 23:23 +0100, Richard Purdie via
> > lists.openembedded.org
> > wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2021-10-26 at 15:54 -0400, Scott Murray wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 26 Oct 2021, Konrad Weihmann wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On 26.10.21 17:57, Scott Murray wrote:
> > > > > > As I brought up on the dev call earlier, the task noexec varflag
> > > > > > documentation says:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * [noexec]: When set to “1”, marks the task as being empty, with no
> > > > > > execution required. You can use the [noexec] flag to set up tasks
> > as
> > > > > > dependency placeholders, or to disable tasks defined elsewhere
> > that are
> > > > > > not needed in a particular recipe.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (from:
> > > > > >
> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.yoctoproject.org_bitbake_bitbake-2Duser-2Dmanual_bitbake-2Duser-2Dmanual-2Dmetadata.html-3Fhighlight-3Dnoexec-23variable-2Dflags&d=DwIFaQ&c=_sEr5x9kUWhuk4_nFwjJtA&r=LYjLexDn7rXIzVmkNPvw5ymA1XTSqHGq8yBP6m6qZZ4njZguQhZhkI_-172IIy1t&m=3MyfDNSSpgdyktGkBPxMbSTE5f_Zhd1LPfnJpB5RZKj7Y_kz1mNBKHiDRQIcQqVa&s=Ft7skkAcV-DVdN9pgL86P8uC4YXvmaZAAxv_Z_b2RfI&e= 
> > )
> > > > > >
> > > > > > However, as I discovered yesterday, the reality is that it being
> > set to
> > > > > > any value at all disables execution, which Richard mentioned on
> > the dev
> > > > > > call helps with performance.  The question Richard asked me to
> > bring here
> > > > > > is whether the documentation should be updated, or if the behavior
> > should
> > > > > > be changed to match it?  I do not have a strong opinion either
> > way, but
> > > > > > would like this resolved somehow to avoid others spending time
> > scratching
> > > > > > their heads like I did for a bit yesterday.
> > > > >
> > > > > As I stumbled upon the very same, I'd love to see the docu being
> > updated - I
> > > > > mean implicitly it already does that as noexec can be only
> > deactivated by
> > > > > putting no value in it - but both cases should be properly
> > documented IMO
> > > >
> > > > Chris mentioned to me OOB this existing Bugzilla:
> > > >
> > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__bugzilla.yoctoproject.org_show-5Fbug.cgi-3Fid-3D13808&d=DwIFaQ&c=_sEr5x9kUWhuk4_nFwjJtA&r=LYjLexDn7rXIzVmkNPvw5ymA1XTSqHGq8yBP6m6qZZ4njZguQhZhkI_-172IIy1t&m=3MyfDNSSpgdyktGkBPxMbSTE5f_Zhd1LPfnJpB5RZKj7Y_kz1mNBKHiDRQIcQqVa&s=5AlgH0WAkrLyi_26gPtB36P6DpYuzhOLhAqWG9JYPUs&e= 
> > > >
> > > > I don't see the discussed deprecation warning change in master,
> > though, so
> > > > I'm guessing it got dropped.
> > >
> > >
> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__git.yoctoproject.org_cgit.cgi_poky_commit_-3Fid-3D66f22c0bd19a81ee7ccb49543f24a4f90fc012ba&d=DwIFaQ&c=_sEr5x9kUWhuk4_nFwjJtA&r=LYjLexDn7rXIzVmkNPvw5ymA1XTSqHGq8yBP6m6qZZ4njZguQhZhkI_-172IIy1t&m=3MyfDNSSpgdyktGkBPxMbSTE5f_Zhd1LPfnJpB5RZKj7Y_kz1mNBKHiDRQIcQqVa&s=2DxZLnNctIoF2d_HHDemxGxT74p51rChV-ZLG9bJz84&e= 
> > >
> > > Is that code working?
> >
> > I did check and with do_compile[noexec] = "0" in the bash recipe, I see:
> >
> > WARNING: /xxx/meta/recipes-extended/bash/bash_5.1.8.bb: In a future
> > version of BitBake, setting the 'noexec' flag to something other than '1'
> > will result in the flag not being set. See YP bug #13808
> >
> > so it does appear to.
> >
> 
> Yes, I did just try it here as well.  I've been working on dunfell and
> missed it in master
> when I looked through git grep, my apologies.  I guess there's still the
> questions of
> just when the deprecation takes effect and if anything should be done with
> respect to
> the documentation in the meantime (since it could IMO be argued it's
> incorrect ATM).
> 

I'd keep that 1 is setting it as this is the expected behavior. I would
add a note that "due to a bug <insert link>, undoing a [noexec] requires to
unset the variable like so: <current way of undoing this varflag>" and
we remove this note once the bug is fixed (can already say we'll forget
but eh :) ).

Cheers,
Quentin

Re: noexec varflag behavior vs documentation?

[Livius]

What about with this bug or improvement? I like to use the following syntax in my custom recipe but when noexec flag got "0", the task is still in inactive state and not starting to run.

do_copy_scripts[noexec] = "${@'0' if (d.getVar('INITRAMFS_IMAGE_BUNDLE') == '1') else '1'}"