Re: kernel.bbclass do_sizecheck behaviour changes

[Mike Crowe <mac@mcrowe.com>]

On Friday 08 December 2017 at 14:24:17 -0800, Andre McCurdy wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> The size limit for an uncompressed kernel vs a compressed kernel is
> >> going to be quite different, so defining one size limit and applying
> >> it to all images doesn't seem logical.
> >
> > I was hoping that we are talking about deployed kernels here compressed
> > sizes can vary widely too
> >
> > So may be we can have a hook to define which image types should be monitored
> > and what the limits are for individual type
> 
> We could do a lot of things and add a lot of complexity. However based
> on the fact that the simplest test has been broken for some time and
> no-one noticed, the evidence is that the kernel image size check isn't
> a widely used feature (and the kernel image size check with multiple
> kernel image types even less so, if at all) and so probably shouldn't
> be the focus of our efforts.

Well, anyone who also didn't notice the change in units probably hasn't
noticed the breakage yet either. :-)

But, I mostly agree. It's clear the size check feature is used, but it's
quite possible that it isn't used in combination with multiple image type
support. So, I think something along the same lines as the patch I
submitted[1] is worth applying, even if in the longer term something better
might be desirable.

Mike.

[1] https://patchwork.openembedded.org/patch/146518/
    http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/2017-December/145402.html