From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from tim.rpsys.net (93-97-173-237.zone5.bethere.co.uk [93.97.173.237]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DB8DE00724 for ; Wed, 9 Jan 2013 05:04:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tim.rpsys.net (8.13.6/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r09D3sED031791; Wed, 9 Jan 2013 13:03:54 GMT Received: from tim.rpsys.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (tim.rpsys.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 23407-04; Wed, 9 Jan 2013 13:03:50 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [192.168.3.10] ([192.168.3.10]) (authenticated bits=0) by tim.rpsys.net (8.13.6/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r09D3knk031748 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 9 Jan 2013 13:03:46 GMT Message-ID: <1357736629.13022.55.camel@ted> From: Richard Purdie To: "Iorga, Cristian" Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2013 13:03:49 +0000 In-Reply-To: <969F26A8BAB325438E7EB80D3C3134FB161DBDFD@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <1357691823-8155-1-git-send-email-eu@felipetonello.com> <969F26A8BAB325438E7EB80D3C3134FB161DBDFD@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com> X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.3-0ubuntu6 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rpsys.net Cc: "Felipe F. Tonello" , "poky@yoctoproject.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH] connman: fixed init script, so it can run with nfs X-BeenThere: poky@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Poky build system developer discussion & patch submission for meta-yocto List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2013 13:04:32 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wed, 2013-01-09 at 10:12 +0000, Iorga, Cristian wrote: > Hello Felipe, > > I have some questions regarding this patch: > > 1. On which hardware/machine have you tested this patch? (real hardware, qemu machine, etc) > 2. In what way is connman affecting nfs? In other words, what is the root cause? > 3. Which version of connman are you using? > > I am asking these questions because I am working on something somehow related, and I think a more general fix might be needed. I'd also add that: a) Patches to this part of the tree need to go to the OE-Core mailing list b) Unconditionally running the expression is inefficient, it should move inside the if statement as it triggers a number of exec calls. This may sound trivial but that all mount up. Cheers, Richard