Re: Packaging kernel sources

[Darren Hart <dvhart@linux.intel.com>]

On 9/10/14, 1:27, "Richard Purdie" <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
wrote:

>On Tue, 2014-09-09 at 17:42 -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
>> I'm working on a project which needs to have the full kernel sources
>> installed on the target. The kernel-dev package as defined by
>> kernel.bbclass is heavily pruned to minimize packaging time and size and
>> is intended to enable building of external modules on the target.
>> 
>> Is there an accepted best-practice for how to get the full source
>>packaged
>> and installed? I can easily write a new recipe,
>> linux-custom-source_git.bb, to install the sources, for example, without
>> impacting the packaging time of "virtual/kernel" package.
>> 
>> It would be nice in some respects for it to all come from the same
>>recipe
>> though, but I suspect the impact to the common-case where this is not
>>need
>> would be far too great.
>
>Personally, I'm leaning towards a couple of big changes in this area:
>
>a) "binning" the kernel-dev package and replacing it with some kind of
>separate full source recipe like this.
>
>The benefit is a fully functional on target source which is only built
>by people who care about it. This means for most users/builds, we no
>longer need to generate that huge package. The downside is a little more
>complexity for those that needs this but its not much.

The other downside is that the most common use case (building external
modules) would now require a lot more disk space than with just kernel-dev
(something like 150 MB more iirc).

>
>
>b) binning the separate kernel staging dir and making it work more like
>the gcc shared work directory. This means external module builds and the
>tools like perf and so on would use this shared source directory.

I was thinking along the same lines here as well.

>
>The benefit would be that we no longer have the huge install step in the
>main kernel recipe and the populate_sysroot step shinks in size.
>
>The downside has more impact here, the problem with shared work is that
>it cannot be removed once extracted since the system never knows when
>something else may need to use it. For gcc the argument was that we have
>so many users (gcc-cross-initial, gcc-cross, gcc-runtime,
>gcc-cross-canadian, gcc-crosssdk, gcc-crosssdk-initial and so on) that
>the multiple copies were far worse. For the kernel, we can argue that we
>have a ton of disk usage from it in the sysroot anyway so this change
>just makes things more efficient effectively.
>
>The other issue is that for shared work dirs, the stamps need to be kept
>in sync, if they step out, odd things happen (i.e. do_fetch, do_unpack,
>do_patch task checksums need to match for linux-yocto, perf, kernel
>modules and anything else using it). We may need to add some better
>error cases to catch problems. Not an insurmountable problem, just one
>that will likely need to be addressed.

Good points.

>
>I do feel the whole situation with the current kernel size is out of
>control and badly affecting user experience.


Yup.

-- 
Darren Hart					Open Source Technology Center
darren.hart@intel.com				            Intel Corporation