* [PATCH] systemtap: remove non-core COMPATIBLE_MACHINES
@ 2011-06-14 22:51 Tom Zanussi
2011-06-16 21:14 ` Richard Purdie
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Tom Zanussi @ 2011-06-14 22:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: openembedded-core
Systemtap only supports x86, x86-64 and powerpc at this point.
v2: updated to reflect comments from Koen Kooi and Phil Blundell to use
COMPATIBLE_HOST instead.
Signed-off-by: Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@intel.com>
---
meta/recipes-kernel/systemtap/systemtap_git.bb | 5 +++--
1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/meta/recipes-kernel/systemtap/systemtap_git.bb b/meta/recipes-kernel/systemtap/systemtap_git.bb
index 8ac4c14..e3e9264 100644
--- a/meta/recipes-kernel/systemtap/systemtap_git.bb
+++ b/meta/recipes-kernel/systemtap/systemtap_git.bb
@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://COPYING;md5=94d55d512a9ba36caa9b7df079bae19f"
DEPENDS = "elfutils"
SRCREV = "4ab3a1863bf4f472acae7a809bf2b38d91658aa8"
-PR = "r1"
+PR = "r2"
PV = "1.4+git${SRCPV}"
SRC_URI = "git://sources.redhat.com/git/systemtap.git;protocol=git \
@@ -23,7 +23,8 @@ EXTRA_OECONF = "--prefix=${D} --with-libelf=${STAGING_DIR_TARGET} --without-rpm
SRC_URI[md5sum] = "cb202866ed704c44a876d041f788bdee"
SRC_URI[sha256sum] = "8ffe35caec0d937bd23fd78a3a8d94b58907cc0de0330b35e38f9f764815c459"
-COMPATIBLE_MACHINE = "(qemux86|qemux86-64|qemuppc|emenlow|crownbay|atom-pc|n450)"
+# systemtap doesn't work on arm and doesn't support mips
+COMPATIBLE_HOST = '(x86_64.*|i.86.*|powerpc.*)-linux'
S = "${WORKDIR}/git"
--
1.7.0.4
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* [PATCH] systemtap: remove non-core COMPATIBLE_MACHINES
@ 2011-06-13 14:35 Tom Zanussi
2011-06-13 14:47 ` Koen Kooi
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Tom Zanussi @ 2011-06-13 14:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: openembedded-core
Move these from here into their respective layers instead.
Signed-off-by: Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@intel.com>
---
meta/recipes-kernel/systemtap/systemtap_git.bb | 4 ++--
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/meta/recipes-kernel/systemtap/systemtap_git.bb b/meta/recipes-kernel/systemtap/systemtap_git.bb
index 8ac4c14..783f30d 100644
--- a/meta/recipes-kernel/systemtap/systemtap_git.bb
+++ b/meta/recipes-kernel/systemtap/systemtap_git.bb
@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://COPYING;md5=94d55d512a9ba36caa9b7df079bae19f"
DEPENDS = "elfutils"
SRCREV = "4ab3a1863bf4f472acae7a809bf2b38d91658aa8"
-PR = "r1"
+PR = "r2"
PV = "1.4+git${SRCPV}"
SRC_URI = "git://sources.redhat.com/git/systemtap.git;protocol=git \
@@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ EXTRA_OECONF = "--prefix=${D} --with-libelf=${STAGING_DIR_TARGET} --without-rpm
SRC_URI[md5sum] = "cb202866ed704c44a876d041f788bdee"
SRC_URI[sha256sum] = "8ffe35caec0d937bd23fd78a3a8d94b58907cc0de0330b35e38f9f764815c459"
-COMPATIBLE_MACHINE = "(qemux86|qemux86-64|qemuppc|emenlow|crownbay|atom-pc|n450)"
+COMPATIBLE_MACHINE = "(qemux86|qemux86-64|qemuppc|atom-pc)"
S = "${WORKDIR}/git"
--
1.7.0.4
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] systemtap: remove non-core COMPATIBLE_MACHINES
2011-06-13 14:35 Tom Zanussi
@ 2011-06-13 14:47 ` Koen Kooi
2011-06-13 14:48 ` Koen Kooi
2011-06-13 14:54 ` Tom Zanussi
0 siblings, 2 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Koen Kooi @ 2011-06-13 14:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer
Op 13 jun 2011, om 16:35 heeft Tom Zanussi het volgende geschreven:
> -COMPATIBLE_MACHINE = "(qemux86|qemux86-64|qemuppc|emenlow|crownbay|atom-pc|n450)"
> +COMPATIBLE_MACHINE = "(qemux86|qemux86-64|qemuppc|atom-pc)"
After having looked at the recipe (basically 'inherit autotools', PACKAGE_ARCH = BASE_PACKAGE_ARCH) and reading the systemtap wiki I can't figure out why COMPATIBLE_MACHINE is actually needed. The closest I get is "needs specific kernel config", but that argument quickly falls down when looking at other recipes that need that (e.g. udev) and considering out layer strategy (bbappending it for all your machines).
So, what am I missing here?
regards,
Koen
PS: there's no 'atom-pc' in OE-core
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] systemtap: remove non-core COMPATIBLE_MACHINES
2011-06-13 14:47 ` Koen Kooi
@ 2011-06-13 14:48 ` Koen Kooi
2011-06-13 14:54 ` Tom Zanussi
1 sibling, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Koen Kooi @ 2011-06-13 14:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer
Op 13 jun 2011, om 16:47 heeft Koen Kooi het volgende geschreven:
>
> Op 13 jun 2011, om 16:35 heeft Tom Zanussi het volgende geschreven:
>> -COMPATIBLE_MACHINE = "(qemux86|qemux86-64|qemuppc|emenlow|crownbay|atom-pc|n450)"
>> +COMPATIBLE_MACHINE = "(qemux86|qemux86-64|qemuppc|atom-pc)"
>
> After having looked at the recipe (basically 'inherit autotools', PACKAGE_ARCH = BASE_PACKAGE_ARCH) and reading the systemtap wiki I can't figure out why COMPATIBLE_MACHINE is actually needed. The closest I get is "needs specific kernel config", but that argument quickly falls down when looking at other recipes that need that (e.g. udev) and considering out layer strategy (bbappending it for all your machines).
>
> So, what am I missing here?
And PACKAGE_ARCH = BASE_PACKAGE_ARCH coupled with COMPATIBLE_MACHINE doesn't make much sense either.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] systemtap: remove non-core COMPATIBLE_MACHINES
2011-06-13 14:47 ` Koen Kooi
2011-06-13 14:48 ` Koen Kooi
@ 2011-06-13 14:54 ` Tom Zanussi
2011-06-13 15:12 ` Koen Kooi
2011-06-13 15:12 ` Phil Blundell
1 sibling, 2 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Tom Zanussi @ 2011-06-13 14:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer
On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 07:47 -0700, Koen Kooi wrote:
> Op 13 jun 2011, om 16:35 heeft Tom Zanussi het volgende geschreven:
> > -COMPATIBLE_MACHINE = "(qemux86|qemux86-64|qemuppc|emenlow|crownbay|atom-pc|n450)"
> > +COMPATIBLE_MACHINE = "(qemux86|qemux86-64|qemuppc|atom-pc)"
>
> After having looked at the recipe (basically 'inherit autotools', PACKAGE_ARCH = BASE_PACKAGE_ARCH) and reading the systemtap wiki I can't figure out why COMPATIBLE_MACHINE is actually needed. The closest I get is "needs specific kernel config", but that argument quickly falls down when looking at other recipes that need that (e.g. udev) and considering out layer strategy (bbappending it for all your machines).
>
> So, what am I missing here?
>
My testing showed systemtap doesn't actually work on arm, and has no
support for mips - the machines listed are the only ones I've been able
to verify that work.
Tom
> regards,
>
> Koen
>
> PS: there's no 'atom-pc' in OE-core
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] systemtap: remove non-core COMPATIBLE_MACHINES
2011-06-13 14:54 ` Tom Zanussi
@ 2011-06-13 15:12 ` Koen Kooi
2011-06-13 15:17 ` Tom Zanussi
2011-06-13 15:12 ` Phil Blundell
1 sibling, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Koen Kooi @ 2011-06-13 15:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer
Op 13 jun 2011, om 16:54 heeft Tom Zanussi het volgende geschreven:
> On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 07:47 -0700, Koen Kooi wrote:
>> Op 13 jun 2011, om 16:35 heeft Tom Zanussi het volgende geschreven:
>>> -COMPATIBLE_MACHINE = "(qemux86|qemux86-64|qemuppc|emenlow|crownbay|atom-pc|n450)"
>>> +COMPATIBLE_MACHINE = "(qemux86|qemux86-64|qemuppc|atom-pc)"
>>
>> After having looked at the recipe (basically 'inherit autotools', PACKAGE_ARCH = BASE_PACKAGE_ARCH) and reading the systemtap wiki I can't figure out why COMPATIBLE_MACHINE is actually needed. The closest I get is "needs specific kernel config", but that argument quickly falls down when looking at other recipes that need that (e.g. udev) and considering out layer strategy (bbappending it for all your machines).
>>
>> So, what am I missing here?
>>
>
> My testing showed systemtap doesn't actually work on arm, and has no
> support for mips - the machines listed are the only ones I've been able
> to verify that work.
So that sounds like COMPATIBLE_HOST instead of machine, no?
regards,
Koen
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] systemtap: remove non-core COMPATIBLE_MACHINES
2011-06-13 15:12 ` Koen Kooi
@ 2011-06-13 15:17 ` Tom Zanussi
0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Tom Zanussi @ 2011-06-13 15:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer
On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 08:12 -0700, Koen Kooi wrote:
> Op 13 jun 2011, om 16:54 heeft Tom Zanussi het volgende geschreven:
>
> > On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 07:47 -0700, Koen Kooi wrote:
> >> Op 13 jun 2011, om 16:35 heeft Tom Zanussi het volgende geschreven:
> >>> -COMPATIBLE_MACHINE = "(qemux86|qemux86-64|qemuppc|emenlow|crownbay|atom-pc|n450)"
> >>> +COMPATIBLE_MACHINE = "(qemux86|qemux86-64|qemuppc|atom-pc)"
> >>
> >> After having looked at the recipe (basically 'inherit autotools', PACKAGE_ARCH = BASE_PACKAGE_ARCH) and reading the systemtap wiki I can't figure out why COMPATIBLE_MACHINE is actually needed. The closest I get is "needs specific kernel config", but that argument quickly falls down when looking at other recipes that need that (e.g. udev) and considering out layer strategy (bbappending it for all your machines).
> >>
> >> So, what am I missing here?
> >>
> >
> > My testing showed systemtap doesn't actually work on arm, and has no
> > support for mips - the machines listed are the only ones I've been able
> > to verify that work.
>
> So that sounds like COMPATIBLE_HOST instead of machine, no?
>
Yeah, you're right - that does make more sense in this case. I'll
update things with your suggestions and respin, thanks...
Tom
> regards,
>
> Koen
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] systemtap: remove non-core COMPATIBLE_MACHINES
2011-06-13 14:54 ` Tom Zanussi
2011-06-13 15:12 ` Koen Kooi
@ 2011-06-13 15:12 ` Phil Blundell
1 sibling, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Phil Blundell @ 2011-06-13 15:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer
On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 09:54 -0500, Tom Zanussi wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 07:47 -0700, Koen Kooi wrote:
> > Op 13 jun 2011, om 16:35 heeft Tom Zanussi het volgende geschreven:
> > > -COMPATIBLE_MACHINE = "(qemux86|qemux86-64|qemuppc|emenlow|crownbay|atom-pc|n450)"
> > > +COMPATIBLE_MACHINE = "(qemux86|qemux86-64|qemuppc|atom-pc)"
> >
> > After having looked at the recipe (basically 'inherit autotools', PACKAGE_ARCH = BASE_PACKAGE_ARCH) and reading the systemtap wiki I can't figure out why COMPATIBLE_MACHINE is actually needed. The closest I get is "needs specific kernel config", but that argument quickly falls down when looking at other recipes that need that (e.g. udev) and considering out layer strategy (bbappending it for all your machines).
> >
> > So, what am I missing here?
> >
>
> My testing showed systemtap doesn't actually work on arm, and has no
> support for mips - the machines listed are the only ones I've been able
> to verify that work.
If it's actually architecture-dependent, ie it will work on any x86 (or
sparc, or...) platform, the way to deal with that is via
COMPATIBLE_HOST.
p.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2011-06-16 21:18 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2011-06-14 22:51 [PATCH] systemtap: remove non-core COMPATIBLE_MACHINES Tom Zanussi
2011-06-16 21:14 ` Richard Purdie
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2011-06-13 14:35 Tom Zanussi
2011-06-13 14:47 ` Koen Kooi
2011-06-13 14:48 ` Koen Kooi
2011-06-13 14:54 ` Tom Zanussi
2011-06-13 15:12 ` Koen Kooi
2011-06-13 15:17 ` Tom Zanussi
2011-06-13 15:12 ` Phil Blundell
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox