Re: [PATCH] linux-yocto-3.4: Disable extra slang header search path

[Bruce Ashfield <bruce.ashfield@windriver.com>]

On 12-08-07 10:16 PM, McClintock Matthew-B29882 wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 8:59 AM, Bruce Ashfield
> <bruce.ashfield@windriver.com>  wrote:
>> On 12-08-07 09:50 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 2012-08-07 at 09:24 -0400, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 12-08-07 07:17 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Add in a workaround to avoid host infection detection build failures
>>>>> from the slang include directory in perf. I'll defer to Bruce to
>>>>> fix this properly but we need a workaround now as this is breaking
>>>>> builds.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I just followed up on a patch from 3 days ago, but I'll follow up here
>>>> as well .. just to make sure the message gets through.
>>>>
>>>> We had a pending patch to fix this issue from Liang Li here @ windriver.
>>>>
>>>> Did that patch not fix the problem, or did it fall through the cracks ?
>>>
>>>
>>> It is not correct. It adds in another search path and just hides the
>>> issue. We should *never* be putting -I/usr/include/slang on the compiler
>>> commandline at all period.
>>
>>
>> I'd argue that it's more correct than commenting out the upstream
>> include path.
>>
>> It fixes the problem, doesn't require a patch to the kernel and give
>> us time to work upstream and get a real fix.
>>
>> So I'd really prefer that we take that fix, versus the kernel patch
>> if it actually fixes the problem.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I'd assumed in all the email traffic that this was clear and that
>>> another solution was being worked on that would be acceptable upstream
>>> too.
>>
>>
>> Exactly what I referred to above. But we don't want a temporary
>> kernel path, we want the temporary recipe patch.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Perhaps a better option might be: -I=/usr/include/slang ? That assumes
>>> that all kernel gcc versions would accept the = notation, that should be
>>> true by now?
>>
>>
>> Not in my experience when dealing with the upstream kernel and tools,
>> there are plenty of old compilers floating around.
>
> Sorry, I'm not following this thread super close.. will all kernel
> trees need to apply this patch? That does not seem ideal...

They would, once we get the patch merged upstream. And you are right,
linux-yocto is easy enough, but that's one set of kernel trees.

The patch that we proposed to the perf recipe would fix it for all
users of that recipe, with a suitable set of kernels (say 3.0 to
3.6 (I haven't checked).

Honestly, that's why we proposed a perf recipe fix, while working on the
right fix for the upstream kernel.

Cheers,

Bruce



>
> -M