From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mga05.intel.com ([192.55.52.89] helo=fmsmga101.fm.intel.com) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1R9gaU-0007Bg-9v for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Fri, 30 Sep 2011 19:09:26 +0200 Received: from mail-fx0-f52.google.com ([209.85.161.52]) by mga01.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 30 Sep 2011 10:03:51 -0700 Received: by fxe23 with SMTP id 23so3023518fxe.25 for ; Fri, 30 Sep 2011 10:03:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.223.10.22 with SMTP id n22mr549250fan.144.1317401903233; Fri, 30 Sep 2011 09:58:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.6.18.230] (c-71-193-189-117.hsd1.wa.comcast.net. [71.193.189.117]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id n1sm7421731fad.20.2011.09.30.09.58.21 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 30 Sep 2011 09:58:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4E85F52B.2010000@intel.com> Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 09:58:19 -0700 From: Saul Wold Organization: Intel User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:6.0.2) Gecko/20110906 Thunderbird/6.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer References: <1317270070-14250-1-git-send-email-msm@freescale.com> <1317270070-14250-7-git-send-email-msm@freescale.com> <1317311457.12332.99.camel@ted> <1317321967.12332.113.camel@ted> In-Reply-To: <1317321967.12332.113.camel@ted> Cc: McClintock Matthew-B29882 Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/16] Fix lttng-ust for powerpc64 X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 17:09:26 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 09/29/2011 11:46 AM, Richard Purdie wrote: > On Thu, 2011-09-29 at 18:21 +0000, McClintock Matthew-B29882 wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Richard Purdie >> wrote: >>> On Wed, 2011-09-28 at 23:21 -0500, Matthew McClintock wrote: >>>> Signed-off-by: Matthew McClintock >>>> --- >>>> meta/recipes-kernel/lttng/fix-powerpc64.patch | 17 +++++++++++++++++ >>>> meta/recipes-kernel/lttng/lttng-ust_0.15.bb | 3 ++- >>>> 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) >>>> create mode 100644 meta/recipes-kernel/lttng/fix-powerpc64.patch >>>> >>>> diff --git a/meta/recipes-kernel/lttng/fix-powerpc64.patch b/meta/recipes-kernel/lttng/fix-powerpc64.patch >>>> new file mode 100644 >>>> index 0000000..d347979 >>>> --- /dev/null >>>> +++ b/meta/recipes-kernel/lttng/fix-powerpc64.patch >>>> @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@ >>>> +Upstream-Status: Inappropriate configuration >>> >>> Is this really inappropriate for upstream? It looks reasonable to me... >> >> Seems reasonable. What is the policy on this? Can I mark it "this >> should be upstreamed" or must I mark it "this was sent upstream" and >> then upstream the change? > > There is some marking for "should be upstreamed"/upstreamable. > The marking would be "Pending", this indicates that it should be attempted, if it gets up streamed then marked Accepted with a pointer to the potential upstream version or ref. Thanks Sau! >>>> +Add bit to detect if we are running on powerpc64 and treat it the >>>> +same as ppc64 >>>> + >>>> +Index: ust-0.15/configure.ac >>>> +=================================================================== >>>> +--- ust-0.15.orig/configure.ac >>>> ++++ ust-0.15/configure.ac >>>> +@@ -111,6 +111,7 @@ changequote([,])dnl >>>> + x86_64) LIBFORMAT="elf64-x86-64" ;; >>>> + powerpc) LIBFORMAT="elf32-powerpc" ;; >>>> + ppc64) LIBFORMAT="elf64-powerpc" ;; >>>> ++ powerpc64) LIBFORMAT="elf64-powerpc" ;; >>>> + s390) LIBFORMAT="elf32-s390" ;; >>>> + s390x) LIBFORMAT="elf64-s390" ;; >>>> + armv5) LIBFORMAT="elf32-littlearm"; NO_UNALIGNED_ACCESS=1 ;; >>>> diff --git a/meta/recipes-kernel/lttng/lttng-ust_0.15.bb b/meta/recipes-kernel/lttng/lttng-ust_0.15.bb >>>> index 915e619..9dd4658 100644 >>>> --- a/meta/recipes-kernel/lttng/lttng-ust_0.15.bb >>>> +++ b/meta/recipes-kernel/lttng/lttng-ust_0.15.bb >>>> @@ -10,9 +10,10 @@ LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://COPYING;md5=e647752e045a8c45b6f583771bd561ef \ >>>> >>>> DEPENDS = "liburcu" >>>> >>>> -PR = "r2" >>>> +PR = "r3" >>>> >>>> SRC_URI = "http://lttng.org/files/ust/releases/ust-${PV}.tar.gz" >>>> +SRC_URI_append_powerpc64 = " file://fix-powerpc64.patch" >>> >>> Does this really need to be conditional on powerppc64? Looks like it can >>> be applied unconditionally... >> >> True, was trying to minimally effect other stuff. But I take it by the >> comment you prefer this be done away with. > > Sometimes minimally affecting other code is good. In this its obviously > not going to break anything else so it can be universal. The risk of > minimal application is fewer people testing it, e.g. when versions get > upgraded. > > Cheers, > > Richard > > > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-core mailing list > Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core >