From: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
To: Cuero Bugot <cbugot@sierrawireless.com>,
"openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org"
<openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] uninative: add variables to the whitelist so that it does not re-triger recipe parsing
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2018 14:56:37 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1522763797.11431.234.camel@linuxfoundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <BY1PR02MB11478B00DEE78E80BF02468CA3A10@BY1PR02MB1147.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
On Fri, 2018-03-30 at 12:45 +0000, Cuero Bugot wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 10:31 AM Cuero Bugot <mailto:cbugot@sie
> > > > rrawireless.com> wrote:
> > > > When uninative is activated (poky's default) internal
> > > > datastore
> > > > variables are modified (NATIVELSBSTRING and
> > > > SSTATEPOSTUNPACKFUNCS)
> > > > to enable uninative support. This is happening after parsing is
> > > > done at the beginning of the build. On the next bitbake call
> > > > the recipe would be parsed if the two variables above were not
> > > > added to the parsing whitelist BB_HASHCONFIG_WHITELIST.
> > > >
> > > > The fix is to add these two variables to the recipe parsing
> > > > whitelist BB_HASHCONFIG_WHITELIST, this is done at recipe
> > > > parsing time, only when uninative.bbclass is used.
> > >
> > > It seems you have a case where data is already parsed and then
> > > uninstive is enabled after this the reparse is happening. Or is
> > > it
> > > always happening when uninative is enabled
> > It is always happening when uninative is enabled (which is poky's
> > default). The 2 first times you build you will have a full recipe
> > parsing.
> > The reason is that the data is effectively modified on reception of
> > BuildStarted event that happens after the parsing is done. Next
> > time you run bitbake, the datastore signature is different and thus
> > retrigger a recipe aprsing.
> Anything I could do help make merge-in this proposal?
Sorry about the delay, I wanted to check that we shouldn't be teaching
get_hash() in data_smart.py in bitbake something about excludevardeps
to make it work better.
In short the answer is that no, we shouldn't and your patch is the
better option. I've queued it in sumo-next. Thanks for figuring it out
as it is an annoying problem.
Cheers,
Richard
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-04-03 13:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-03-19 13:57 [PATCH] uninative: add variables to the whitelist so that it does not re-triger recipe parsing Cuero Bugot
2018-03-30 12:45 ` Cuero Bugot
2018-04-03 13:56 ` Richard Purdie [this message]
2018-04-03 14:15 ` Cuero Bugot
2018-04-04 20:08 ` Randy MacLeod
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2018-03-16 17:31 Cuero Bugot
2018-03-16 23:00 ` Khem Raj
2018-03-19 13:58 ` Cuero Bugot
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1522763797.11431.234.camel@linuxfoundation.org \
--to=richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=cbugot@sierrawireless.com \
--cc=openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox