[OE-core] [PATCH 07/16] Fix lttng-ust for powerpc64
Richard Purdie
richard.purdie at linuxfoundation.org
Thu Sep 29 15:50:50 UTC 2011
On Wed, 2011-09-28 at 23:21 -0500, Matthew McClintock wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Matthew McClintock <msm at freescale.com>
> ---
> meta/recipes-kernel/lttng/fix-powerpc64.patch | 17 +++++++++++++++++
> meta/recipes-kernel/lttng/lttng-ust_0.15.bb | 3 ++-
> 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> create mode 100644 meta/recipes-kernel/lttng/fix-powerpc64.patch
>
> diff --git a/meta/recipes-kernel/lttng/fix-powerpc64.patch b/meta/recipes-kernel/lttng/fix-powerpc64.patch
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..d347979
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/meta/recipes-kernel/lttng/fix-powerpc64.patch
> @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
> +Upstream-Status: Inappropriate configuration
Is this really inappropriate for upstream? It looks reasonable to me...
> +
> +Add bit to detect if we are running on powerpc64 and treat it the
> +same as ppc64
> +
> +Index: ust-0.15/configure.ac
> +===================================================================
> +--- ust-0.15.orig/configure.ac
> ++++ ust-0.15/configure.ac
> +@@ -111,6 +111,7 @@ changequote([,])dnl
> + x86_64) LIBFORMAT="elf64-x86-64" ;;
> + powerpc) LIBFORMAT="elf32-powerpc" ;;
> + ppc64) LIBFORMAT="elf64-powerpc" ;;
> ++ powerpc64) LIBFORMAT="elf64-powerpc" ;;
> + s390) LIBFORMAT="elf32-s390" ;;
> + s390x) LIBFORMAT="elf64-s390" ;;
> + armv5) LIBFORMAT="elf32-littlearm"; NO_UNALIGNED_ACCESS=1 ;;
> diff --git a/meta/recipes-kernel/lttng/lttng-ust_0.15.bb b/meta/recipes-kernel/lttng/lttng-ust_0.15.bb
> index 915e619..9dd4658 100644
> --- a/meta/recipes-kernel/lttng/lttng-ust_0.15.bb
> +++ b/meta/recipes-kernel/lttng/lttng-ust_0.15.bb
> @@ -10,9 +10,10 @@ LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://COPYING;md5=e647752e045a8c45b6f583771bd561ef \
>
> DEPENDS = "liburcu"
>
> -PR = "r2"
> +PR = "r3"
>
> SRC_URI = "http://lttng.org/files/ust/releases/ust-${PV}.tar.gz"
> +SRC_URI_append_powerpc64 = " file://fix-powerpc64.patch"
Does this really need to be conditional on powerppc64? Looks like it can
be applied unconditionally...
Cheers,
Richard
More information about the Openembedded-core
mailing list