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

[McClintock Matthew-B29882]

On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 9:22 PM, Bruce Ashfield
<bruce.ashfield at windriver.com> wrote:
> 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.

It seems wrong to need a kernel patch to fix this issue, kernels are
built outside of oe-core and it seems better to fix things in one
place. By the way, I'm seeing this on our kernel recipe in
meta-fsl-ppc too.

-M