On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 11:52 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:
On Mon, 2021-11-01 at 03:47 -0700, Manuel Leonhardt wrote:Ok, I'll submit a new patch.
I submitted a patch to fix bb.utils.lockfile to at least break the loop andI think we just let lockfile truncate the filename if necessary since this could
fail
when a too long filename is passed with
https://lists.openembedded.org/g/bitbake-devel/message/12850
Nevertheless, you have a good point here: Fixing the code that constructs the
filename of the lock files would be the better solution. For the sstate files
only lockfiles of .siginfo files can overlap, because the filename of the
actual
sstate file is already 8 characters shorter than 255 characters. I have one
though on that:
From what I have seen, the filename of lockfiles is mostly constructed by
appending ".lock" without any further check. Truncating the filename of the
lockfile inside bb.utils.lockfile could be confusing however, since the
function
would not use the filename that is was explicitly passed. Hence, I guess
bb.utils.lockfile should fail when a too long filename was passed, and the
function building the lockfile's filename should ensure to keep it limited;
that's bb.fetch2.FetchData.__init__ then if I'm not mistaken. Would you agree?
Or would you say, changing the filename inside bb.utils.lockfile is ok, as
long
as the function is working?
The drive-by fix I made with using limit instead of 254 when shortening the
filename is still correct and necessary, right?
affect other users of the funciton too.
Looking at the code you changed with the limit value it isn't correct since
extension is already accounted for in avail (although I agree that code is
confusing and I had to think twice about it).
Cheers,
Richard