[OE-core] [PATCH] "Finish" the IMAGE_GEN_DEBUGFS implementation

[Mark Hatle]

On 10/2/15 9:30 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-10-02 at 09:23 -0500, Mark Hatle wrote:
>> On 10/1/15 5:31 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2015-10-01 at 13:26 -0500, Mark Hatle wrote:
>>>> It was noticed today that the IMAGE_GEN_DEBUGFS implementation was not 
>>>> complete.  The version that was merged back in May only contained the 
>>>> filesystem generation pieces, but not the pieces for creating the image
>>>> from that filesystem.
>>>>
>>>> The code has been tested and is working.  The only thing that I don't 
>>>> particularly like is that the processing code and loop is a duplicate of
>>>> the code that runs just before.  Unfortunately the only way around this
>>>> is to change the way that way the parallel bits are processed to support
>>>> multiple datastores..  (or create "another" function..)
>>>>
>>>> Any feedback appreciated, but without this the feature is broken!
>>>
>>> Could we not make a function which these two code points then call?
>>
>> The duplicate piece is because the existing setup and loop depend on the local
>> self.d value(s).  In order to do this, we need to temporarily modify self.d and
>> run this under an alternative datastore, and then put it back to the original value.
>>
>> If I don't duplicate the:
>>
>>             for image_cmds in debugfs_image_cmd_groups:
>> ...
>>                 results = list(pool.imap(generate_image, image_cmds))
>> ...
>>                 for image_type, subimages, script in image_cmds:
>>                     bb.note("Creating debugfs symlinks for %s image ..." %
>> image_type)
>>                     self._create_symlinks(subimages)
>>
>> there is no concept of two different datastores.
>>
>> The alternative we have is to include a reference to the datastore itself in the
>> 'image_cmds'.  Then we could support any number of datastores as appropriate for
>> the commands.  (This of course will require additional changes to be able to
>> pass that datastore to the various users.)
> 
> Ah, right. Going from memory, we can't share a datastore with a
> multiprocessing pool. We could do that with a multithreaded pool but I'm
> nervous about that for two reasons, one that we've had bad interaction
> between threads and processes in the past and secondly around locking
> and data usage in the threads.
> 
> So not an easy problem...

V2 coming..  it turns out you can avoid the multithread pool issue by making a
few other select changes..

I missed this yesterday when I was floundering trying to get this to work.

--Mark

> Cheers,
> 
> Richard
>