[OE-core] [PATCH] core-image-minimal-initramfs: use initramfs-framework for initialization
Cal Sullivan
california.l.sullivan at intel.com
Mon Feb 26 20:34:37 UTC 2018
Hi Ross,
Somehow dropped you from CC on my last reply. Can we give this another
shot? The error we saw should be unrelated to this patch, as the wic
image being tested here does not use core-image-minimal-initramfs at all.
Thanks,
Cal
On 02/06/2018 11:03 AM, Cal Sullivan wrote:
> Shortly after leaving work last night I realized that this error
> should have nothing to do with the initrd/initramfs, as this wic image
> is not using one.
>
> Also, in 300 runs of this test the error didn't occur once, so it
> appears to be very rare.
>
> ---
> Cal
>
> On 02/05/2018 05:52 PM, Cal Sullivan wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 02/05/2018 04:47 PM, Khem Raj wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 4:15 PM Cal Sullivan
>>> <california.l.sullivan at intel.com
>>> <mailto: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
>> Thanks for the info Khem! I think its an intermittent issue unrelated
>> to this patch.
>>
>> I ran the following with my patch applied on top of master and only
>> SANITY_TESTED_DISTROS changed in local.conf:
>>
>> MACHINE=qemux86-64 oe-selftest -r wic.Wic.test_qemu
>>
>> And it didn't fail.
>>
>> I'm going to run this test a few hundred times overnight without my
>> patch and see if I can hit it.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Cal
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---
>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/attachments/20180226/bd835c21/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Openembedded-core
mailing list