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

Trevor Woerner twoerner at gmail.com
Fri Mar 23 15:05:15 UTC 2018


This item doesn't appear to have a follow-up.

On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 11:10 AM, Burton, Ross <ross.burton at intel.com> wrote:

> 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
>
>
> --
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180323/0ad9b8c0/attachment-0002.html>


More information about the Openembedded-core mailing list