[OE-core] [PATCH] core-image-minimal-initramfs: use initramfs-framework for initialization

[Khem Raj]

On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 4:15 PM Cal Sullivan <california.l.sullivan at intel.com>
wrote:

> 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.
>

Udev trigger sometimes get ignored have seem that in past

>
>
> ---
> 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> 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> 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>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>   meta/recipes-core/images/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
>>>>> b/meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb
>>>>> index 5794a25952a..a9ba91bd310 100644
>>>>> --- a/meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb
>>>>> +++ b/meta/recipes-core/images/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
>>> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
>>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core at lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/attachments/20180206/369ba04f/attachment-0002.html>