From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UXeZo-0001Jl-RP for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Wed, 01 May 2013 23:28:40 +0200 Received: from orsmga002.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.21]) by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 01 May 2013 14:08:48 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,591,1363158000"; d="scan'208";a="329798741" Received: from envy2.jf.intel.com (HELO envy2.home) ([10.7.199.54]) by orsmga002.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 01 May 2013 14:10:43 -0700 Message-ID: <518184D2.9000308@linux.intel.com> Date: Wed, 01 May 2013 14:10:42 -0700 From: Darren Hart User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130110 Thunderbird/17.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Phil Blundell References: <1367244122.14512.124.camel@phil-desktop.brightsign> <51816817.7080101@linux.intel.com> <1367442335.25055.23.camel@pb-ThinkPad-R50e> In-Reply-To: <1367442335.25055.23.camel@pb-ThinkPad-R50e> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1 Cc: "openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel.bbclass: Don't include source files for "other" architectures in the sysroot X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 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, 01 May 2013 21:28:41 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 05/01/2013 02:05 PM, Phil Blundell wrote: > On Wed, 2013-05-01 at 12:08 -0700, Darren Hart wrote: >> You've stated that this successfully removes code on mips, have you also >> tested that basic module building still works? For example, does >> hello-mod still build? > > I didn't try hello-mod, but the two (proprietary) out-of-tree modules > that we routinely build into our own images do still compile and work. > >> Have you confirmed this on any other architectures? I'd like to see a >> test at least on the core emulated BSPs (or maybe at least 2 of them) >> before we pull this in as we have spent quite a bit of effort getting >> modules building to date, I'd hate to break that due to a lack of testing. > > I've tested on arm and mips. I guess I can set up a build tree for a > qemu target on some other architecture if you like. I'd feel more comfortable with a bit more testing as this impacts all architecture and that sometimes has subtle effects. >>> make -C $kerneldir _mrproper_scripts >>> find $kerneldir -path $kerneldir/lib -prune -o -path $kerneldir/tools -prune -o -path $kerneldir/scripts -prune -o -name "*.[csS]" -exec rm '{}' \; >>> + rm -rf $(find $kerneldir/arch -maxdepth 1 -not -path $kerneldir/arch/$ARCH -not -path $kerneldir/arch/Kconfig -not -path $kerneldir/arch/. -not -path $kerneldir/arch) >> >> Any particular reason for not using "-exec rm" like the other code >> removal commands here? > > No, just force of habit. Using xargs is more performant in general, but > "find -exec ..." is safer and I guess that's probably what we should do > here too. OK, I'll wait for the next version. -- Darren Hart Intel Open Source Technology Center Yocto Project - Technical Lead - Linux Kernel