From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Greylist: delayed 454 seconds by postgrey-1.34 at layers.openembedded.org; Wed, 08 Feb 2017 13:55:49 UTC Received: from avasout05.plus.net (avasout05.plus.net [84.93.230.250]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E83D871C27 for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 13:55:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from deneb ([80.229.24.9]) by avasout05 with smtp id iDoB1u0020BmcFC01DoCsA; Wed, 08 Feb 2017 13:48:14 +0000 X-CM-Score: 0.00 X-CNFS-Analysis: v=2.2 cv=Hr8GIwbS c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=E/9URZZQ5L3bK/voZ0g0HQ==:117 a=E/9URZZQ5L3bK/voZ0g0HQ==:17 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=n2v9WMKugxEA:10 a=gdCW4lFhI8uyIvVjrxcA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 Received: from mac by deneb with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cbSbS-00089i-TQ; Wed, 08 Feb 2017 13:48:10 +0000 Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 13:48:10 +0000 From: Mike Crowe To: Patrick Ohly Message-ID: <20170208134810.GA29105@mcrowe.com> References: <20170208115042.GA21576@mcrowe.com> <1486559082.13854.12.camel@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1486559082.13854.12.camel@intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Cc: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] rm_work.bbclass: clean up sooner X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2017 13:56:02 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Wednesday 08 February 2017 at 14:04:42 +0100, Patrick Ohly wrote: > On Wed, 2017-02-08 at 11:50 +0000, Mike Crowe wrote: > > On Friday 13 January 2017 at 15:52:33 +0100, Patrick Ohly wrote: > > > The right solution is to inject do_rm_work before do_build and after > > > all tasks of the recipe. Achieving that depends on the new bitbake > > > bb.event.RecipeTaskPreProcess and bb.build.preceedtask(). > > > > We've run into trouble with this change. We have a number of custom > > ancillary tasks that are used to generate source release files and run > > package tests. No other tasks (including do_build) depend on these tasks > > since they are run explicitly when required using bitbake -c; either > > directly or via a recrdeptask. > > > > Running a single task continues to work correctly - presumably this is > > because the do_build task is not being run, so its dependencies (including > > rm_work) aren't run either. > > > > Running via the recrdeptask fails. This is because for any particular > > recipe we end up depending on both do_build and the source release tasks. > > There's nothing to stop do_rm_work running before (or even during!) one of > > the source release tasks. > > Can you show how you use recrdeptask and how you call bitbake to trigger > those extra tasks, just for my understanding? Certainly, we have a bbclass globally in INHERIT that contains: addtask source_release # potential fix here do_source_release() { : } addtask all_source_releases xx_do_all_source_releases() { : } do_all_source_releases[nostamp] = "1" do_all_source_releases[recrdeptask] += "do_all_source_releases do_source_release" addtask husk_recipe before do_source_release python xx_do_husk_recipe() { ... } (there's also another task similar to do_husk_recipe) and in the particular recipe that has trouble with racing against rm_work: do_husk_recipe() { # do stuff in ${WORKDIR} } addtask husk_recipe after do_populate_sysroot before do_source_release there's also a source-release-world recipe that contains: DEPENDS = "our-image" and we run: bitbake -c all_source_releases source-release-world > I suppose it worked before because your tasks could depend on do_build > without triggering do_rm_work, while now that is included. I believe so. > > It seems that we need to ensure that do_rm_work also needs to depend on our > > ancillary tasks too, but only if they are being built. I'm unsure how this > > can be done though. :( > > How do you determine whether the tasks need to run? Does it depend on > how bitbake is invoked or does it depend on specific properties of the > recipe? Running bitbake as above. I think that I could fix this by changing: addtask source_release to addtask source_release before do_rm_work (and also fixing any other tasks that suffer from this problem) but I was hoping that there was a better fix to rm_work.bbclass itself. Thanks. Mike.