From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [216.145.245.197] (helo=mx01.dls.net) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LcmqY-0001Nz-7m for openembedded-devel@openembedded.org; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 21:29:12 +0100 Received: from [209.242.7.188] (helo=[192.168.231.111]) by mx01.dls.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LcmnF-0005XU-Kd for openembedded-devel@openembedded.org; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 14:25:18 -0600 Message-ID: <49A6FAA6.2010104@dls.net> Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 14:25:10 -0600 From: "Mike (mwester)" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.19) Gecko/20081209 Thunderbird/2.0.0.19 Mnenhy/0.7.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: openembedded-devel@openembedded.org References: <49A6BFA5.4070405@xora.org.uk> <565965130902261031h3d21c452w51b8d1217cebde54@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <565965130902261031h3d21c452w51b8d1217cebde54@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [RFC] update opkg* SRCREV to 201 X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org List-Id: Using the OpenEmbedded metadata to build Distributions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 20:29:53 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I'm glad to hear that there's work on some of these issues, as outlined below! -Mike Tick wrote: > Hi, > Koen and Graeme Thanks. > To my understanding, the fix from R197 to R201 are some easy defect fixing. > Fixing some typos, memory leak, and giving initial value some variable. > There were no big change in these versions. > Therefore I didn't bump up versions here. > There are still some issues in my mind and I am still finding large > chunk of time to deal with them. > 1. the algorithm calculate the dependency is not very efficient. > (Much faster than R180 now, but I know it can be faster) Because of > there were some duplicated code and ill structured code from ipkg, I > need to refactorying them first before changing the algorithm. > 2. memory leak problem, ipkg were designed for running once and > exit, and therefore there were many place are not took carefully. > Thomas and I already fixed a lot, but not all of them. Most of the > largest memory leaks were fixed, however there were still some small > leaks need to be find out. Especially libopkg is used as library, this > should be take care well. (If anyone find a leak, please report or > help. thanks) > 3. memory hungry issue, opkg will eat a large amount of memory if > you have many packages metadata. This may cause problem, however there > is dilemma. Storing metadata will make opkg faster, but may cause very > limited device run out of memory. Saving memory will cause cpu busying > malloc and free all the time, and it will be very slow. Though the > algorithm now seems to be okay, for device having so many packages > should be powerful enough. XD I am considering adding a flag decide > which policy (fast or save memory) to use while building opkg. > 4. buffer over issue, some of the code did not check the boundary > well. Actually R197 is fixing an buffer overflow issue, in which not > be found for a long long time until it cause problem (on x86_64 arch > only). >_< > Many code needs to be reviewed/tested again and again to make sure the > quality is good enough, and it's need your reports, help and patches. > If I break anything, I am sorry. And please mail to > opkg-devel@googlegroups.com poking me, creating a ticket with > backtrace and some analysis to > http://code.google.com/p/opkg/issues/list is good, sending a patch is > even welcome. When I realize if it cause serious problem to you, I > will try to fix it asap. I will be glad if every opkg user does not > aware it's existence, except the developers. > Thank a lot. > > Cheers, > Tick > > > 2009/2/27 Graeme Gregory : >> Koen Kooi wrote: >>> On 25-02-09 21:46, Koen Kooi wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I was getting seriously annoyed with the useless error codes opkg was >>>> giving me and Tick pointed me to: >>>> >>>> http://code.google.com/p/opkg/issues/detail?id=6&can=1 >>>> >>>> We're at 197 now in OE (with r201 applied as patch). I'd like to get >>>> r199 and r200 in as well, and since I'm lazy I though we'd get r198 in >>>> as well, which means instead of adding a few patches I can just bump up >>>> SRCREV to 201. >>>> >>>> What do you think? >>> Noone is thinking anything? >>> >> Sorry been AFK, my opinion of these things is always no-one will test >> until stuff is committed anyway. So you might as well go ahead! Without >> the bug reports tick won't be able to improve opkg. >> >> Graeme (XorA) >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Openembedded-devel mailing list >> Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org >> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel >> > > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-devel mailing list > Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel >