Re: [PATCH 1/1] busybox: add config fragments

Bruce Ashfield
2013-02-12T14:22:48Z

On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 8:21 AM, Richard Purdie
<richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-02-05 at 11:29 -0500, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 1:42 AM, ChenQi <Qi.Chen@windriver.com> wrote:
>> On 02/02/2013 03:08 AM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
>> > On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Saul Wold
>> > <sgw@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>> > On 02/01/2013 06:18 AM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
>> > On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 4:00 AM,
>> > <Qi.Chen@windriver.com
>> > <mailto:Qi.Chen@windriver.com>> wrote:
>> > <mailto:Qi.Chen@windriver.com>>
>> > Both the implementation and the use case
>> > are similar to yocto kernel's
>> > configuration fragments.
>> > I can fairly easily tweak the configuration
>> > parts of the kern-tools to
>> > handle this
>> > use case as well. That would allow us to
>> > re-use the kernel's merge_config.sh
>> > script (with a minor dependency change) and
>> > save some duplicated code. It
>> > also gets you the advantage that you can
>> > consolidate configuration fragments
>> > outside of any build system, which isn't as
>> > critical here, but something
>> > that
>> > is used quite a bit during kernel testing.
>> > Bruce,
>> >
>> > Where is the merge_config.sh script today? Would
>> > you propose moving it to the scripts dir and have
>> > the busybox recipe call it?
>> >
>> >
>> > It's part of the mainline kernel, hence why grabbing the
>> > guts out of it reproducing
>> > it here isn't the best idea, we'll have a need to keep them
>> > in sync. In fact, I have
>> > 2 or 3 pending patches for it in the kern-tools repository
>> > that I need to get upstream
>> > (as an example).
>> >
>> >
>> > I'd propose either creating a separate recipe for it (i.e.
>> > like kconfig-frontends) or I could
>> > keep it in kern-tools (badly named, but we can work on
>> > that ;) and maintain / coordinate
>> > changes to it.
>> >
>> >
>> > I just don't want to see the effort happen twice, we are
>> > busy enough!
>> >
>> >
>> > What would be your timing on making such a change,
>> > ie hold this patch until your get it merge or merge
>> > this and then fix it when you merge your changes?
>>
>> > I could feasibly get it done in the next few weeks, the
>> > changes aren't bug, I just
>> > have to avoid regressions on either side (kernel or busy
>> > box).
>>
>> > That being said, the interface to the SRC_URI is the same
>> > for the two, so if we are
>> > ok with me arriving and removing the in-recipe support, I
>> > guess I can't object too
>> > much :) The only risk is that if anyone starts using this
>> > first support immediately,
>> > I do risk regressing their use case, where if it never goes
>> > in, that won't happen.
>>
>> > Cheers,
>> > Bruce
>>
>> Hi Bruce,
>>
>> I just tried to reuse the kernel's merge_config.sh script, and
>> it turned out well.
>> The patch is in attachment.
>>
>> Is it enough for now?
>>
>> Yep, this is enough for now. It re-uses the significant part of the
>> infrastructure, which
>> is the important part. Once it is in tree, I can refine the dependency
>> and some other
>> minor modifications.
>>
>> Feel free to add my Signed-off-by: to the patch as well.
>
> This patch triggers a failure on the autobuilder:

Hmmm. I didn't realize this had been picked up yet, I was waiting for
a repost with the Sign-offs. I assume this is master under test ? I can
pick up the patch from there and send an updated patch, since Chen Qi
won't be around to look into this for a few days.

Cheers,

Bruce

>
> http://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org:8010/builders/p1022ds/builds/246/steps/shell_59/logs/stdio
>
> (its reproducible, this is the second one now)
>
> I suspect there is a missing DEPENDS += "kern-tools-native".
>
> You'd be able to reproduce this with a:
>
> bitbake busybox kern-tools-native; bitbake busybox kern-tools-native -c clean; bitbake busybox
>
> Cheers,
>
> Richard
>
>

--
"Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await
thee at its end"