From: Joe MacDonald <Joe_MacDonald@mentor.com>
To: "Huang, Jie (Jackie)" <Jackie.Huang@windriver.com>
Cc: openembedded-devel <openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] iscsitarget: skip the arch test for kernel modules
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 11:17:02 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160303161701.GA4671@mentor.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1B858668EC6A94408DCA5225FDFA85AA010C80D944@ALA-MBA.corp.ad.wrs.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3945 bytes --]
Hi Jackie,
[Re: [oe] [PATCH 2/2] iscsitarget: skip the arch test for kernel modules] On 16.03.03 (Thu 04:41) Huang, Jie (Jackie) wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 3:27 AM, <jackie.huang@windriver.com> wrote:
> > From: Jackie Huang <jackie.huang@windriver.com>
> >
> > Kernel modules may not have the same architecture as user space.
> > So we tell INSANE_SKIP to skip checking the arch for the modules.
> > This is consistent with other kernel modules and the kernel recipe.
> >
> > This one still hasn't been merged and since iscsitarget is currently unbuildable,
> > I'm not in a rush to merge this one particularly since I'm not really clear on the
> > logic underlying the change. I searched the archives and found your response to
> > Martin was essentially "see my netmap-modules patch for an explanation" and in that
> > one the explanation was basically "this is the way other kernel modules do it".
>
> I think I meant to refer to this one which is not merged either:
> commit 6727154c929f3dc8ed86bab29aa1de88620906e9
> Author: Jackie Huang <jackie.huang@windriver.com>
> Date: Tue Nov 17 01:44:47 2015 -0800
>
> netmap-modules: skip the arch check for kernel module
>
> When building on a multilib capable BSP, it's possible for the
> kernel bit size to be different than the userspace. Avoid the
> QA test when building the kernel module.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jackie Huang <jackie.huang@windriver.com>
>
> sorry that if the explanation is not clear enough.
>
> > I merged that one but now I'm thinking I shouldn't have without more
> > careful consideration.
>
> The one you merged is "netmap-modules: Modules may not have the same arch as userspace"
> and Mark helped to split and re-word the commit message like what it is now.
Okay, so at least I am looking at what I think I'm looking at.
> > Am I correct in thinking that this problem only shows up when you're
> > building for multilib?
>
> We have BSPs with a 64 bit kernel + modules + 32 bit userspace by default, the
> problem always show up when we're building such BSP, and we have a bbclass to
> add INSANE_SKIP for internal modules:
>
> # sanity updates. The do_package_qa_prepend and vmlinux sanity
> # flags allow a 64 bit kernel + modules to be packaged against a
> # 32 bit userspace. If external modules are built, they must supply
> # their own INSANE_SKIP_<module> = "arch" if they want to be properly
> # packaged.
> python do_package_qa_prepend () {
I guess in this case you mean it's a bbclass that's internal to Wind
River, I did a quick search and couldn't find the code you reference above
anywhere in my poky tree.
> > I've reverted "netmap-modules: Modules may not have the same arch as userspace" in my contrib
> > tree at http://git.openembedded.org/meta-openembedded-contrib/log/?h=joeythesaint/meta-networking-next
> > and my initial test builds showed no QA issues related to netmap-modules and the arch checks.
> > So I started looking around for other kernel modules doing something similar and I don't actually
> > see this "INSANE_SKIP_kernel-module-*" construct being used anywhere else in meta-oe or poky
> > (and at the least I would expect something like cryptodev-module to need it, it looks like an
> > analogue to me). Can you fill me in on what's special with iscsitarget and netmap, because
> > even if it is a multilib issue, why wouldn't that be showing up for other kernel modules built
> > in poky?
>
> That's because there is no such BSP like I mentioned above in poky, I
> undersatand if this is not accpeted, we may add this in our own layer.
I think that's best, since otherwise the you'll be submitting these
changes for any external module to support a use-case that we don't have
in Yocto and there's no obvious corresponding behaviour in poky.
Thanks.
--
-Joe MacDonald.
:wq
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 484 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-03-03 16:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-11-25 8:27 [PATCH 1/2] iscsitarget: split the kernel module into separate package jackie.huang
2015-11-25 8:27 ` [PATCH 2/2] iscsitarget: skip the arch test for kernel modules jackie.huang
2015-11-30 14:00 ` Koen Kooi
2016-02-27 2:26 ` Joe MacDonald
2016-03-03 4:41 ` Huang, Jie (Jackie)
2016-03-03 16:17 ` Joe MacDonald [this message]
2016-03-04 1:36 ` Huang, Jie (Jackie)
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20160303161701.GA4671@mentor.com \
--to=joe_macdonald@mentor.com \
--cc=Jackie.Huang@windriver.com \
--cc=openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.