From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qw0-f48.google.com (mail-qw0-f48.google.com [209.85.216.48]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE791E004D2 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 08:17:41 -0800 (PST) Authentication-Results: yocto-www.yoctoproject.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; insecure key) header.i=@gmail.com; x-dkim-adsp=none (insecure policy) Received: by qadz30 with SMTP id z30so3991435qad.14 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 08:17:40 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=aeX9n5E8n9e3q+T2F7XrpNXDCh0XKFBUJt80JgHdv0Q=; b=RvELMrj5t6cLSugWpA5S7lpmbJkRRb6krVlP6JJjSgxFAWpQ3XVhIbNHGjy3+IGOvo 2+1BpHzaQyg+GqvDN7k54vxXADAXenz6LT0Y1oJF9AoOGuEPiNagiC5lBN6VWKkxcWAD yAjnDJA4cBLgvrTG8kO/NeCxcyKtQU3WWt+W4= Received: by 10.224.17.143 with SMTP id s15mr22525880qaa.64.1326903460567; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 08:17:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.0.1.39] (nc-184-3-54-63.dhcp.embarqhsd.net. [184.3.54.63]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id m20sm51188723qaj.14.2012.01.18.08.17.38 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 18 Jan 2012 08:17:39 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4F16F0A2.9070805@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 11:17:38 -0500 From: Jim Abernathy User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111124 Thunderbird/8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: William Mills References: <4F16DC5D.9070903@mlbassoc.com> <4F16DDCD.2020701@ti.com> <4F16E20C.9010909@ti.com> <4F16EE0D.1080805@ti.com> In-Reply-To: <4F16EE0D.1080805@ti.com> Cc: yocto@yoctoproject.org Subject: Re: build failure on ubuntu 64bits development system X-BeenThere: yocto@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of all things Yocto List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:17:42 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 01/18/2012 11:06 AM, William Mills wrote: > > > On 01/18/2012 10:25 AM, James Abernathy wrote: >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 10:15 AM, William Mills > > wrote: >> >> >> >> On 01/18/2012 10:04 AM, James Abernathy wrote: >> >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: *William Mills* >> >> >> Date: Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 9:57 AM >> Subject: Re: [yocto] build failure on ubuntu 64bits development >> system >> To: Gary Thomas >> >> >> Cc: yocto@yoctoproject.org >> __> >> >> >> >> >> On 01/18/2012 09:51 AM, Gary Thomas wrote: >> >> On 2012-01-18 07 :42, >> James Abernathy wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 9:30 AM, James Abernathy >> >> > >> >> >__>__> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 7:55 AM, James Abernathy >> >> > >> >> >__>__> >> >> wrote: >> >> I just built a new development pc and installed Ubuntu 11.10 >> x64. I wonder if there are any new requirements to building >> Yocto in that environment? I got an error right >> off, but then it complete the first 63 task and stopped >> successfully. error below: >> >> jim@ubuntu:~/poky/build-cdv$ bitbake core-image-sato >> Pseudo is not present but is required, building this first >> before the main build >> Parsing recipes: 100% >> |#############################____####################| Time: >> 00:00:25 >> >> Parsing of 797 .bb files complete (0 cached, 797 parsed). 1037 >> targets, 22 skipped, 0 masked, 0 errors. >> ERROR: Execution of event handler 'run_buildstats' failed >> Traceback (most recent call last): >> File "run_buildstats(e)", line 18, in >> run_buildstats(e=> 0x4c338d0>) >> >> File "buildstats.bbclass", line 21, in >> set_device(e=) >> >> UnboundLocalError: local variable 'rdev' referenced before >> assignment >> >> >> Any ideas? >> >> JIm A >> >> >> I went back and tried using the tarballs for poky edison and >> cedartrail bsp and the errors don't occur. So I'm guessing the >> issue isn't related to Ubuntu 32 vs. 64 bit. >> >> >> I spoke too soon. Same error in edison tarballs. I looked at the >> code and I can see an place were rdev could go un assigned. If >> you fell out of the for loop without passing any of >> the if conditions, rdev would be unassigned. That must be what >> is happening in Ubuntu 11.10 x64 >> >> Anybody building with Ubuntu 11.10 x64? This doesn't happen >> on x32 >> >> Jim A >> >> >> def set_device(e): >> tmpdir = bb.data.getVar('TMPDIR', e.data, True) >> try: >> os.remove(bb.data.getVar('____DEVFILE', e.data, True)) >> except: >> pass >> >> ##############################____############################__##__################ >> >> # We look for the volume TMPDIR lives on. To do all disks would >> make little >> # sense and not give us any particularly useful data. In theory >> we could do >> # something like stick DL_DIR on a different partition and this >> would >> # throw stats gathering off. The same goes with SSTATE_DIR. >> However, let's >> # get the basics in here and work on the cornercases later. >> >> ##############################____############################__##__################ >> device=os.stat(tmpdir) >> majordev=os.major(device.st_____dev) >> minordev=os.minor(device.st_____dev) >> >> for line in open("/proc/diskstats", "r"): >> if majordev == int(line.split()[0]) and minordev == >> int(line.split()[1]): >> rdev=line.split()[2] >> file = open(bb.data.getVar('DEVFILE', e.data, True), "w") >> file.write(rdev) >> file.close() >> >> >> Can you show what the differences are between /proc/diskstats >> on the two systems? That's obviously what's causing the error. >> >> >> If your build dir is encyptfs or a fuse device or anything that >> is not a >> direct block device you will get this error. This is to be >> fixed in >> 1.1.1 but encyptfs will still have other problems. >> >> I build the Ubuntu 11.10 x64 system with 2 drives setup as Soft >> RAID 0. >> I picked btrfs as the file system for no particular reason. >> Should I go >> back to ext4 or is RAID 0 the problem? >> >> >> No, I would not do that yet. I would think software RAID would >> present a block device so would not trigger this error. >> >> I was hoping to use RAID 0 for speed. I have a I7 2700K on a DZ68DB with >> 2 6Gb/s ports matched to 2 6Gb/s 7200 hard drives. Since the builds take >> so long, I was looking for an edge. >> >> So are there any recommendations at this point? I'm assuming that the >> default ext4 directly on the SATA drive is a fall back position. >> >> Advice? > > If it were me, I would instrument (hack) that code above to see what > part is failing. Are you getting the right dev major/ minor from the > stat code or is the /proc/diskstats search code failing. > > Alternatively you could try the 1.1.1 branch to see if that fixes it. > I'm not sure I'm the right guys to be debugging this :-) In the interest of my schedule, and since this is a brand new workstation, I'm just going to try EXT4 on Soft RAID 0 and see if that works. If not, I'll look at 1.1.1. I Assume that would be the M4 release at this time. Jim A > >> >> Jim A >> >> >> > 9 0 md0 133691 0 2218832 0 67133 0 5629616 0 0 0 0 >> > 9 1 md1 235 0 1880 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 >> >> Your build dir is in md0 or md1 (wrt your other post) >> >> >> JIm A >> >> ___________________________________________________ >> yocto mailing list >> yocto@yoctoproject.org >> __> >> https://lists.yoctoproject.____org/listinfo/yocto >> > > >> >> >> >> >> _________________________________________________ >> yocto mailing list >> yocto@yoctoproject.org >> https://lists.yoctoproject.__org/listinfo/yocto >> >> >>