[OE-core] Oddness regarding file locks in package.bbclass

[Burton, Ross]

On 3 October 2017 at 19:17, Peter Kjellerstedt <peter.kjellerstedt at axis.com>
wrote:

> > +     # Take shared lock since we're only reading, not writing
> >       lf = bb.utils.lockfile(bb.data.expand("${PACKAGELOCK}", d))
>
> Here, however, it is not changed, even though a comment is added to
> say that it is. Was this intentional, or just an oversight?
>
> > +     # Take shared lock since we're only reading, not writing
> >       lf = bb.utils.lockfile(bb.data.expand("${PACKAGELOCK}", d))
>
> Here again a comment is added, but the code is not changed to match.


I'm no expert on this piece of code but that definitely looks like an
oversight.


> Also, what is the ${PACKAGELOCK} lock file actually protecting? With
>
the exception of the two questionable cases above, I cannot see that
> the lock is taken privately anywhere else. And since it looks as the
> code in package_do_shlibs() and package_do_pkgconfig() is not what
> needs protection (based on the added comments above), what is?
>

Good point.  The sstate locks are also shared.

Richard was involved in all of these changes so lets wait for him to return
from his holiday...

Ross
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/attachments/20171004/51a3f75b/attachment-0002.html>