[lttng-dev] [OE-core] [PATCH v2] lttng-modules: Backport patches to fix compilation failures since kernel v5.1
Mathieu Desnoyers
mathieu.desnoyers at efficios.com
Wed Jun 12 07:29:50 EDT 2019
----- On Jun 12, 2019, at 1:10 PM, zhe he zhe.he at windriver.com wrote:
> On 6/12/19 6:58 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>> ----- On Jun 12, 2019, at 12:51 PM, Adrian Bunk bunk at stusta.de wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 11:49:34PM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 2019-06-11 at 17:03 +0800, zhe.he at windriver.com wrote:
>>>>> From: He Zhe <zhe.he at windriver.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> For the moment,
>>>>> 0001~0004 are on master branch only.
>>>>> 0005~0007 are on stable-2.11 branch, but v2.11 has not been released
>>>>> yet.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: He Zhe <zhe.he at windriver.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> v2: Correct a typo in SOB for 0001*.patch
>>>> I just discussed this with lttng upstream maintainers a little. We're
>>>> going to have continual tension between keeping lttng-modules up to
>>>> date and new kernel versions.
>>>>
>>>> How about we also have a git version of this particular recipe which
>>>> has a DEFAULT_PREFERENCE = "-1" but people can opt into with a
>>>> PREFERRED_VERSION when using newer kernels?
>>> Yocto stable series will ship a _git AUTOREV recipe?
>>>
>>>> That should keep people using very recent kernels happy, let us use a
>>>> stable release version and avoid us adding/removing large patchsets on
>>>> a semi regular basis?
>>>> ...
>>> The semi regular basis is only slightly moved, or how and when will
>>> replacing the already EOL kernel 5.0 with 5.1 in Yocto be handled?
>>>
>>> IMHO it would be better to acknowledge that this is a case where staying
>>> at stable release versions is sometimes not the best option, and upgrade
>>> the normal recipe to -rc releases or even a git snapshot from a more
>>> recent stable branch when necessary.
>>>
>>> E.g. right now it seems clear that the next Yocto release will have
>>> to use lttng-modules >= 2.11 in any case for kernel 5.2, so upgrading
>>> from 2.10.9 to 2.11.0-rc5 would be logical.
>> Please don't base distributions on -rc tags. They are not meant for this.
>>
>> We always integrate support for newer kernel versions instrumentation back
>> into our current stable release. So as soon as 5.2 final comes out, we will
>> release a 2.10.x version including support for it in lttng-modules.
>
> I'm one of the people who need to use lttng-modules on rc kernel.
>
>>
>> The current 2.10.10 has commits to support the currently known 5.2-rc
>> instrumentation changes.
>
> Seems v2.10.10 does not contains the 7 needed patches in my v1 for kernel v5.0+.
> $ git pull
> Already up-to-date.
> $ git tag|grep v2.10.10
> v2.10.10
> $ git tag --contains 92da05ce1f73488a57e7fd79e9c03113cefdb76f
> $ git tag --contains d88e2fe5c3ea0d2c3055fba824be17223c418854
> $ git tag --contains d6cd2c9598a06f0ba1ba885bbe754e8836528310
> $ git tag --contains 2ca0c84f0b4a915c555a0b83102d94ac941619ca
> $ git tag --contains da00122ccfae6a73ec859826a0be1cf0902cfd11
> v2.11.0-rc5
> $ git tag --contains da00122ccfae6a73ec859826a0be1cf0902cfd11
> v2.11.0-rc5
> $ git tag --contains df0e746a05a267384785d66c9fca947eb4a9e517
> v2.11.0-rc5
> $ git tag --contains 9f70b60c19abc6dc0811e427ed5da4aa74620aca
> v2.11.0-rc5
You're aware that the commit ID changes when we cherry-pick
a commit right ?
Please double-check with the commit names...
Thanks,
Mathieu
>
> Thanks,
> Zhe
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Mathieu
>>
>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> Richard
>>> cu
>>> Adrian
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
>>> of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
>>> "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
> >> Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
More information about the lttng-dev
mailing list