[OE-core] [PATCH] core-image-minimal-initramfs: use initramfs-framework for initialization
Cal Sullivan
california.l.sullivan at intel.com
Tue Feb 6 00:15:23 UTC 2018
Looking at the test and the output, its expecting /dev/sda3 to be
mounted as /media and /dev/sda4 to be mounted as /mnt. With this test
result, there is no /media, and instead /dev/sda3 is mounted to /mnt.
That seems odd to me unless that partition either wasn't created or went
entirely undetected.
I'll take a closer look, I think there's more going on here.
---
Cal
On 02/05/2018 03:34 PM, Burton, Ross wrote:
> This is causing the qemu boot wic test to fail in oe-selftest:
>
> 2018-02-05 15:08:41,786 - oe-selftest - INFO - FAIL [64.639s]:
> test_qemu (wic.Wic)
> 2018-02-05 15:08:41,786 - oe-selftest - INFO -
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 2018-02-05 15:08:41,786 - oe-selftest - INFO - Traceback (most recent
> call last):
> File
> "/home/pokybuild/yocto-autobuilder/yocto-worker/nightly-oe-selftest/build/meta/lib/oeqa/core/decorator/__init__.py",
> line 32, in wrapped_f
> return func(*args, **kwargs)
> File
> "/home/pokybuild/yocto-autobuilder/yocto-worker/nightly-oe-selftest/build/meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/cases/wic.py",
> line 58, in wrapped_f
> return func(*args, **kwargs)
> File
> "/home/pokybuild/yocto-autobuilder/yocto-worker/nightly-oe-selftest/build/meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/cases/wic.py",
> line 637, in test_qemu
> self.assertEqual(output, '/dev/root /\r\n/dev/sda1
> /boot\r\n/dev/sda3 /mnt')
> AssertionError: '/dev/root /\r\n/dev/sda1 /boot\r\n/dev/sda3
> /media\r\n/dev/sda4 /mnt' != '/dev/root /\r\n/dev/sda1
> /boot\r\n/dev/sda3 /mnt'
> /dev/root /
> /dev/sda1 /boot
> - /dev/sda3 /media
> - /dev/sda4 /mnt? ^
> + /dev/sda3 /mnt? ^
>
> Presumably this is the initramfs mounting more stuff automatically? I
> don't have an opinion right now as to whether this is a problem with
> the initramfs or the test case being too strict...
>
> Ross
>
>
> On 1 February 2018 at 14:03, Burton, Ross <ross.burton at intel.com
> <mailto:ross.burton at intel.com>> wrote:
>
> Sorry, missed this. I'll pull it into MUT and throw it at the
> autobuilder...
>
> Ross
>
> On 31 January 2018 at 22:53, Cal Sullivan
> <california.l.sullivan at intel.com
> <mailto:california.l.sullivan at intel.com>> wrote:
>
> Ping.
>
> ---
> Cal
>
>
> On 01/09/2018 05:00 PM, Cal Sullivan wrote:
>
> Anything wrong with this? Haven't seen it hit any mut
> branches.
>
> Thanks,
> Cal
>
> On 12/19/2017 02:12 PM, California Sullivan wrote:
>
> initramfs-framework is more modular and expandable.
> This change was
> proposed in commit
> 28fc6ba761ed4a47efa7c43e7f7dff5e2fe72b5e
> "core-image-minimal-initramfs: use initramfs-framework
> by default" but
> reverted due to the selftests
> runqemu.RunqemuTests.test_boot_machine_iso
> and runqemu.RunqemuTests.test_boot_deploy_hddimg
> failing. Since then,
> the kinks have been worked out, and missing
> functionality that had been
> missed (non-EFI installation module) has been added.
>
> Since the PACKAGE_INSTALL variable was getting so long
> with all these
> individual modules getting added, I also introduced a new
> INITRAMFS_SCRIPTS variable to the
> core-image-minimal-initramfs recipe.
> This variable makes the recipe look much cleaner, and
> also allows easier
> replacement or additions to the scripts.
>
> Fixes [YOCTO #10987].
>
> Signed-off-by: California Sullivan
> <california.l.sullivan at intel.com
> <mailto:california.l.sullivan at intel.com>>
> ---
>
> meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb
> <http://core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb> | 10 +++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git
> a/meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb
> <http://core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb>
> b/meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb
> <http://core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb>
> index 5794a25952a..a9ba91bd310 100644
> ---
> a/meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb
> <http://core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb>
> +++
> b/meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb
> <http://core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb>
> @@ -3,7 +3,15 @@ DESCRIPTION = "Small image capable of
> booting a device. The kernel includes \
> the Minimal RAM-based Initial Root Filesystem
> (initramfs), which finds the \
> first 'init' program more efficiently."
> -PACKAGE_INSTALL = "initramfs-live-boot
> initramfs-live-install initramfs-live-install-efi
> ${VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_base-utils} udev base-passwd
> ${ROOTFS_BOOTSTRAP_INSTALL}"
> +INITRAMFS_SCRIPTS ?= "\
> + initramfs-framework-base \
> + initramfs-module-setup-live \
> + initramfs-module-udev \
> + initramfs-module-install \
> + initramfs-module-install-efi \
> + "
> +
> +PACKAGE_INSTALL = "${INITRAMFS_SCRIPTS}
> ${VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_base-utils} udev base-passwd
> ${ROOTFS_BOOTSTRAP_INSTALL}"
> # Do not pollute the initrd image with rootfs features
> IMAGE_FEATURES = ""
>
>
>
> --
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core at lists.openembedded.org
> <mailto:Openembedded-core at lists.openembedded.org>
> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
> <http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/attachments/20180205/e31dbbbe/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Openembedded-core
mailing list