From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-oi1-f194.google.com (mail-oi1-f194.google.com [209.85.167.194]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DCAF79357; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 14:58:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-oi1-f194.google.com with SMTP id a77so600411oii.5; Thu, 06 Dec 2018 06:58:33 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:subject:to:date:in-reply-to:references:user-agent :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=AtVe/OovBXjq3I+UexQ/PW1Ub3m5fCF1TOxNy6g8GaQ=; b=MBeJNmj4JmSWUgVLHSxr7Y4GSz1gFobIEQjwQxyRr4RgU9M64WJCGf/PHnlnfvOUvW rJjXxQgLWu0wtodrNzKYL/HshH2BZw14cOAJWNT1aqELHSoYul3Pty4pciDZtYGWb9dg LY6+MQ0jq8cRGmzavRPMnGgiJLBK2yRamif0Jhm2ISOcX2tD6VETNemPujpARBQ/Fx1e eDMr85J5qfLfn8vxWUiNiUAeQCsUbGzfqCddyi97VMICci4qQ/tiVQKgvopyRSOMDzPb 3M3uR8IkyhVt9ojvqx6cWcyijgMODa13jd6K1UlmHg6OyPgclQBgjA8NS+YIV07k2Xpr tAwg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:subject:to:date:in-reply-to :references:user-agent:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=AtVe/OovBXjq3I+UexQ/PW1Ub3m5fCF1TOxNy6g8GaQ=; b=t1FTrP9hC8xqBVNvY19PvCj/XCx+DUQ5+QsKk4Sa8fpEZ4SVwg63rCAocL9TJnGToV 41o6Z0m8+6huALbgCIvx4fcCf7hsFTm9ohqXpaqN0zW5PXY8WPku6tPd+Idgmi+UtpEF oFuCWvkC3zGwVoOk5/jJXe0jlIAR/mD++iLzQuww/CPys5kkUSDO8YSBImnqLKtZPOnd FoChawjnRUCPGaGAjE5paWPL+m5nXWLdklIR4ADKK12k4RsbPeO7BgzTvqBaHpZ281qr YnKeP8aVJ5hXxMtp+/xrizi+pq/ONY4yWOMI4q7I1QulaEe/PHw49XSWWQ/74/kGlOcj 6REA== X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWah8cxb3BszkpqPfC+sHaaN1bU6dXTsPJBynTkuohtU7+aeC0DD wa5HhJcGB8j96nc2sdcPxHc= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/Vr/HkYcV+sHrAD3V4E0jkvX0dvCN++iqHS3fpyNJC21MRqIbzKyigs5Kb/Kd+5auJJ5aipBg== X-Received: by 2002:aca:54c4:: with SMTP id i187mr16918634oib.238.1544108312974; Thu, 06 Dec 2018 06:58:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from ola-842mrw1.ad.garmin.com ([204.77.163.55]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id 21sm214793oie.24.2018.12.06.06.58.31 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Thu, 06 Dec 2018 06:58:32 -0800 (PST) From: Joshua Watt X-Google-Original-From: Joshua Watt Message-ID: To: Richard Purdie , openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org, bitbake-devel@lists.openembedded.org Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2018 08:58:30 -0600 In-Reply-To: <92dc76b3b209f034ebafaf88ae8ff9844475abb9.camel@linuxfoundation.org> References: <20180809220840.26697-1-JPEWhacker@gmail.com> <20181204034245.25461-1-JPEWhacker@gmail.com> <20181204034245.25461-11-JPEWhacker@gmail.com> <92dc76b3b209f034ebafaf88ae8ff9844475abb9.camel@linuxfoundation.org> User-Agent: Evolution 3.30.1 (3.30.1-1.fc29) Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [bitbake-devel] [PATCH v3 10/17] bitbake: siggen: Split out task depend ID 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: Thu, 06 Dec 2018 14:58:32 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wed, 2018-12-05 at 22:50 +0000, Richard Purdie wrote: > On Mon, 2018-12-03 at 21:42 -0600, Joshua Watt wrote: > > Abstracts the function to get the dependency ID for a task so it > > can > > return something other that the taskhash > > > > [YOCTO #13030] > > > > Signed-off-by: Joshua Watt > > --- > > bitbake/lib/bb/siggen.py | 7 +++++-- > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/bitbake/lib/bb/siggen.py b/bitbake/lib/bb/siggen.py > > index ab6df7603c8..2daca70538a 100644 > > --- a/bitbake/lib/bb/siggen.py > > +++ b/bitbake/lib/bb/siggen.py > > @@ -41,6 +41,9 @@ class SignatureGenerator(object): > > def finalise(self, fn, d, varient): > > return > > > > + def get_depid(self, task): > > + return self.taskhash[task] > > + > > def get_taskhash(self, fn, task, deps, dataCache): > > return "0" > > I spent a while wondering why we still had "IDs" in the runqueue code > when I thought I'd removed them all. Once I'd gotten over that I I suppose I'm not familiar enough with bitbake's history to have understood that these "IDs" were problematic in the past :) > somehow thought this related to the task's dependencies and then how > could it only have one of them? > > I therefore suspect calling this "depid" is going to be confusing and > we need a better name for it. I'm wondering about taskresid? > taskresolvid? taskresolvedid? taskreshash? > > I appreciate why you're calling it an 'ID', hash may be clearer > thought, not sure... Ya, I struggled with the naming. There is no reason it has to be a hash, so I went with a (probably too generic) "ID"... in practice using a hash is reasonable so I don't have a problem using "hash" in the name. My runner up names were "dephash" or "taskdephash". I think indicating that it is involved in the dependency calculations is important, although I can see how it might be some confusion about where it is involved. I'm not too keen on the "resolved" names... but maybe I'm missing where the are stemming from? Another option if you want to go more of the graph theory approach might be "taskedgehash", "edgehash", "taskedgeid", "edgeid", etc. > > Cheers, > > Richard > > > > > > > > > > -- Joshua Watt