[OE-core] [PATCH] linux-yocto-3.4: Disable extra slang header search path

[Bruce Ashfield]

On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 10:18 PM, Bruce Ashfield
<bruce.ashfield at windriver.com> wrote:
> On 12-08-07 10:16 PM, McClintock Matthew-B29882 wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 8:59 AM, Bruce Ashfield
>> <bruce.ashfield at windriver.com>  wrote:
>>>
>>> On 12-08-07 09:50 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 2012-08-07 at 09:24 -0400, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 12-08-07 07:17 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Add in a workaround to avoid host infection detection build failures
>>>>>> from the slang include directory in perf. I'll defer to Bruce to
>>>>>> fix this properly but we need a workaround now as this is breaking
>>>>>> builds.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I just followed up on a patch from 3 days ago, but I'll follow up here
>>>>> as well .. just to make sure the message gets through.
>>>>>
>>>>> We had a pending patch to fix this issue from Liang Li here @
>>>>> windriver.
>>>>>
>>>>> Did that patch not fix the problem, or did it fall through the cracks ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is not correct. It adds in another search path and just hides the
>>>> issue. We should *never* be putting -I/usr/include/slang on the compiler
>>>> commandline at all period.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I'd argue that it's more correct than commenting out the upstream
>>> include path.
>>>
>>> It fixes the problem, doesn't require a patch to the kernel and give
>>> us time to work upstream and get a real fix.
>>>
>>> So I'd really prefer that we take that fix, versus the kernel patch
>>> if it actually fixes the problem.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'd assumed in all the email traffic that this was clear and that
>>>> another solution was being worked on that would be acceptable upstream
>>>> too.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Exactly what I referred to above. But we don't want a temporary
>>> kernel path, we want the temporary recipe patch.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps a better option might be: -I=/usr/include/slang ? That assumes
>>>> that all kernel gcc versions would accept the = notation, that should be
>>>> true by now?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Not in my experience when dealing with the upstream kernel and tools,
>>> there are plenty of old compilers floating around.
>>
>>
>> Sorry, I'm not following this thread super close.. will all kernel
>> trees need to apply this patch? That does not seem ideal...
>
>
> They would, once we get the patch merged upstream. And you are right,
> linux-yocto is easy enough, but that's one set of kernel trees.

I should add, that not all trees, and only builds that use a
particular set of perf
features out of master would see this problem (as far as I know), so I didn't
mean to make this sound bigger than it is ... it's just something that master
was hitting on the autobuilders (and who knows, maybe I'm mischaracterizing
the problem as well :)

Cheers,

Bruce

>
> The patch that we proposed to the perf recipe would fix it for all
> users of that recipe, with a suitable set of kernels (say 3.0 to
> 3.6 (I haven't checked).
>
> Honestly, that's why we proposed a perf recipe fix, while working on the
> right fix for the upstream kernel.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Bruce
>
>
>
>
>>
>> -M
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core at lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core



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