From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-io0-f175.google.com (mail-io0-f175.google.com [209.85.223.175]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4995760191 for ; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 15:09:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-io0-f175.google.com with SMTP id f84so22063718ioj.0 for ; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 08:09:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=intel-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to:references :organization:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=A5aY9agtq32eaN7OL5LhJzNnXa2PZXDc9wQ1gaSxYyc=; b=rZr4PMrApR5cGCmj5RtxQ+BPrXbDExO8FZs12tpkslAsEQcSJef8LPEYx8TDHJaHoJ kdRr2MEz5Y1Ok0UwvfxjQP08Cy1x3VJOfbrrs//imMN8BZ3c7oMEvQOi+ggToBwW//3T Tz6Tiqk5jBC0ueMiuFXTVAybtN1EWyEtICa2NPpEWYdaK0o2+OHdukBKKqVDQELpxHqc sBB837E8ZX+vTtw5T23dVAe6zixIg1GVbLHNvT2GiUFeru4tWrKGixMh5uf64nOzdGXW yYA6KjW+q8C0KGK1pJ6Nis9HvKMxXz8UCckoG3O6FLis6pfAz42KwYIBkRx4UUg+Z5O0 CnYA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to :references:organization:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=A5aY9agtq32eaN7OL5LhJzNnXa2PZXDc9wQ1gaSxYyc=; b=dkM74sYg3HW8iGTch/WYARjAfBh34kQnjc0aokoJWF5IIDAOW4uIYnXUoGdIzmSuw9 sH5UY5JsFy9yaPD1pDk7FAS4SBfqy8CfYvOVqZWxaK8N7vl8XRmdURW6VoF/51Km0gJm l0DWqrrSlMCxaJPCK38ul3Q7DbcFpnQyl+fp6buCTpyh6OZuqvWfwBmj1sCLNgUQYgJo R41rGn5pkZKDtOV4woN5i4FNdyA6kXZBNhvwR35jIYdd6SdFPfKgdtOKQbontTk7qs4c FxlQyD2DClyG+IjpqsS3kPRLZ119txl+Mm1Yh/h1L0Bulbfsj4qT+prHYi830x9QQKL6 rFHQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H3LYu1Ii439nAGu2yhhkZyyLOU9ojBrS9rGCH/bMWz7yalhHPehu8/TnEw4ApVy3un7 X-Received: by 10.107.55.137 with SMTP id e131mr5229582ioa.105.1489590578241; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 08:09:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pohly-mobl1 (p5DE8DCEB.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [93.232.220.235]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y124sm272781itd.19.2017.03.15.08.09.35 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 15 Mar 2017 08:09:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <1489590574.6396.113.camel@intel.com> From: Patrick Ohly To: ed.bartosh@linux.intel.com Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 16:09:34 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20170315144704.GA7153@linux.intel.com> References: <20170308134349.GA16099@linux.intel.com> <20170314171147.GA28498@linux.intel.com> <1489513785.6396.83.camel@intel.com> <20170314180644.GA22000@linux.intel.com> <1489562674.6396.89.camel@intel.com> <20170315125810.GA28986@linux.intel.com> <1489585158.6396.102.camel@intel.com> <1489585294.6396.104.camel@intel.com> <20170315140143.GA17397@linux.intel.com> <20170315144704.GA7153@linux.intel.com> Organization: Intel GmbH, Dornacher Strasse 1, D-85622 Feldkirchen/Munich X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.9-1+b1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: Gary Thomas , openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: Create more than one image with WIC X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 15:09:37 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wed, 2017-03-15 at 16:47 +0200, Ed Bartosh wrote: > On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 04:01:43PM +0200, Ed Bartosh wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 02:41:34PM +0100, Patrick Ohly wrote: > > > On Wed, 2017-03-15 at 14:39 +0100, Patrick Ohly wrote: > > > > On Wed, 2017-03-15 at 14:58 +0200, Ed Bartosh wrote: > > > > > Regarding do_rm_work. It should not touch rootfs directories, I believe. > > > > > > > > > It does, and it should by default because a rootfs can be quite large. > > > If it's not going to be reused in another recipe, then it is worthwhile > > > to remove it. > > This is true unless we're going to use wic as a stand-alone tool, which some > > people still do. > > > > > I should add that RM_WORK_EXCLUDE_ITEMS += "rootfs" can be used in image > > > recipes which know that their rootfs is going to be needed elsewhere - > > > it's just not the default. > > > > Isn't rootfs going to be rebuilt if one rootfs recipe depends on another one? > > Here is an example of dependency I'm talking about: > wic-image-minimal can be built just fine with enabled rm_work. > Its .wks uses 2 rootfs: core-image-minimal and wic-image-minimal. > > I didn't use any RM_WORK_EXCLUDE_ITEMS. I did specified dependency to > core-image-minimal in wic-image-minimal recipe: > > # core-image-minimal is referenced in .wks, so we need its rootfs > # to be ready before our rootfs > do_rootfs[depends] += "core-image-minimal:do_image core-image-minimal:do_rootfs_wicenv" > > Am I missing something here? I'm pretty sure you have a race condition, you just haven't triggered the failure case. Perhaps you were also lucky because my "rm_work.bbclass: re-enable recursive do_rm_work_all" is pending and thus core-image-minimal:do_rm_work never ran at all. -- Best Regards, Patrick Ohly The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak on behalf of Intel on this matter.