[bitbake-devel] [PATCH 2/6] data_smart: Improve the calculation of config hash
Richard Purdie
richard.purdie at linuxfoundation.org
Mon Apr 16 08:28:13 UTC 2012
On Mon, 2012-04-16 at 15:15 +0800, Xu, Dongxiao wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-04-11 at 00:00 +0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
> > On Mon, 2012-04-09 at 16:41 +0800, Dongxiao Xu wrote:
> > > The order of keys are not sensitive for config hash, so we need to
> > > identify its order while calculating the md5 value.
> > >
> > > While for certain values, order is also not sensitive (for example,
> > > BBINCLUDED), we also need to identify its order while calculating md5
> > > value.
> > >
> > > This could fix the problem that Martin Jansa reported in the mailing
> > > list:
> > >
> > > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/pipermail/bitbake-devel/2012-March/002122.html
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Dongxiao Xu <dongxiao.xu at intel.com>
> > > ---
> > > lib/bb/data_smart.py | 10 +++++++---
> > > 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/lib/bb/data_smart.py b/lib/bb/data_smart.py
> > > index 2c200db..cc61a03 100644
> > > --- a/lib/bb/data_smart.py
> > > +++ b/lib/bb/data_smart.py
> > > @@ -462,13 +462,17 @@ class DataSmart(MutableMapping):
> > > self.delVar(var)
> > >
> > > def get_hash(self):
> > > - data = ""
> > > + data = {}
> > > config_whitelist = set((self.getVar("BB_HASHCONFIG_WHITELIST", True) or "").split())
> > > + config_sort = set((self.getVar("BB_HASHCONFIG_SORT", True) or "").split())
> > > keys = set(key for key in iter(self) if not key.startswith("__"))
> > > for key in keys:
> > > if key in config_whitelist:
> > > continue
> > > value = self.getVar(key, False) or ""
> > > - data = data + key + ': ' + str(value) + '\n'
> > > + if key in config_sort:
> > > + value = " ".join(sorted(value.split()))
> > > + data.update({key:value})
> > >
> > > - return hashlib.md5(data).hexdigest()
> > > + data_str = str([(k, data[k]) for k in sorted(data.keys())])
> > > + return hashlib.md5(data_str).hexdigest()
> >
> >
> > This and the corresponding change in bitbake.conf look rather worrying
> > to me. The order in BBINCLUDED is significant and if it changes we
> > should be reparsing.
>
> Hi Richard,
>
> Why do you say the order in BBINCLUDED is significant?
>
> I saw the original code ignores the order when handling __depends and
> __base_depends.
>
> For example:
>
> def mark_dependency(d, f):
> if f.startswith('./'):
> f = "%s/%s" % (os.getcwd(), f[2:])
> deps = d.getVar('__depends') or set()
> deps.update([(f, cached_mtime(f))])
> d.setVar('__depends', deps)
>
> I think the get_file_depends(d) just follows the original logic.
>
> Or do you mean the mark_dependency(d, f) is also buggy?
In that case I think the original code is also buggy.
Cheers,
Richard
More information about the bitbake-devel
mailing list