[oe] [PATCH 2/2] iscsitarget: skip the arch test for kernel modules

[Huang, Jie (Jackie)]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe MacDonald [mailto:Joe_MacDonald at mentor.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 04, 2016 12:17 AM
> To: Huang, Jie (Jackie)
> Cc: openembedded-devel
> Subject: Re: [oe] [PATCH 2/2] iscsitarget: skip the arch test for kernel modules
> 
> Hi Jackie,
> 
> [Re: [oe] [PATCH 2/2] iscsitarget: skip the arch test for kernel modules] On 16.03.03 (Thu 04:41) Huang,
> Jie (Jackie) wrote:
> 
> > > On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 3:27 AM, <jackie.huang at windriver.com> wrote:
> > > From: Jackie Huang <jackie.huang at windriver.com>
> > >
> > > Kernel modules may not have the same architecture as user space.
> > > So we tell INSANE_SKIP to skip checking the arch for the modules.
> > > This is consistent with other kernel modules and the kernel recipe.
> > >
> > > This one still hasn't been merged and since iscsitarget is currently unbuildable,
> > > I'm not in a rush to merge this one particularly since I'm not really clear on the
> > > logic underlying the change.  I searched the archives and found your response to
> > > Martin was essentially "see my netmap-modules patch for an explanation" and in that
> > > one the explanation was basically "this is the way other kernel modules do it".
> >
> > I think I meant to refer to this one which is not merged either:
> > commit 6727154c929f3dc8ed86bab29aa1de88620906e9
> > Author: Jackie Huang <jackie.huang at windriver.com>
> > Date:   Tue Nov 17 01:44:47 2015 -0800
> >
> >     netmap-modules: skip the arch check for kernel module
> >
> >     When building on a multilib capable BSP, it's possible for the
> >     kernel bit size to be different than the userspace. Avoid the
> >     QA test when building the kernel module.
> >
> >     Signed-off-by: Jackie Huang <jackie.huang at windriver.com>
> >
> > sorry that if the explanation is not clear enough.
> >
> > > I merged that one but now I'm thinking I shouldn't have without more
> > > careful consideration.
> >
> > The one you merged is "netmap-modules: Modules may not have the same arch as userspace"
> > and Mark helped to split and re-word the commit message like what it is now.
> 
> Okay, so at least I am looking at what I think I'm looking at.
> 
> > > Am I correct in thinking that this problem only shows up when you're
> > > building for multilib?
> >
> > We have BSPs with a 64 bit kernel + modules + 32 bit userspace by default, the
> > problem always show up when we're building such BSP, and we have a bbclass to
> > add INSANE_SKIP for internal modules:
> >
> > # sanity updates. The do_package_qa_prepend and vmlinux sanity
> > # flags allow a 64 bit kernel + modules to be packaged against a
> > # 32 bit userspace. If external modules are built, they must supply
> > # their own INSANE_SKIP_<module> = "arch" if they want to be properly
> > # packaged.
> > python do_package_qa_prepend () {
> 
> I guess in this case you mean it's a bbclass that's internal to Wind

Yes.

> River, I did a quick search and couldn't find the code you reference above
> anywhere in my poky tree.
> 
> > > I've reverted "netmap-modules: Modules may not have the same arch as userspace" in my contrib
> > > tree at http://git.openembedded.org/meta-openembedded-contrib/log/?h=joeythesaint/meta-
> networking-next
> > > and my initial test builds showed no QA issues related to netmap-modules and the arch checks.
> > > So I started looking around for other kernel modules doing something similar and I don't actually
> > > see this "INSANE_SKIP_kernel-module-*" construct being used anywhere else in meta-oe or poky
> > > (and at the least I would expect something like cryptodev-module to need it, it looks like an
> > > analogue to me).  Can you fill me in on what's special with iscsitarget and netmap, because
> > > even if it is a multilib issue, why wouldn't that be showing up for other kernel modules built
> > > in poky?
> >
> > That's because there is no such BSP like I mentioned above in poky, I
> > undersatand if this is not accpeted, we may add this in our own layer.
> 
> I think that's best, since otherwise the you'll be submitting these
> changes for any external module to support a use-case that we don't have
> in Yocto and there's no obvious corresponding behaviour in poky.

Ok, I see, thanks!

Thanks,
Jackie

> 
> Thanks.
> 
> --
> -Joe MacDonald.
> :wq