Skip to contentSkip to conversation

update OLDEST_KERNEL

PATCH In review Paul Eggleton 6 participants 16 messages Jul 7, 2011 – Jul 8, 2011

lore
Share & tools
lore

Paul Eggleton

author
#0 lore raw

cover update OLDEST_KERNEL

The following changes since commit f1fc6d084b079dea21ff1a30b815496452042490:

pulseaudio: add 0.9.23 (2011-07-07 13:44:36 +0100)

are available in the git repository at:
git://git.openembedded.org/openembedded-core-contrib paule/oldest-kernel-26
http://cgit.openembedded.org/cgit.cgi/openembedded-core-contrib/log/?h=paule/oldest-kernel-26

Paul Eggleton (2):
bitbake.conf: update OLDEST_KERNEL to 2.6.0
eglibc: bump PR for OLDEST_KERNEL change

 meta/conf/bitbake.conf                  |    2 +-
 meta/recipes-core/eglibc/eglibc_2.12.bb |    2 +-
 meta/recipes-core/eglibc/eglibc_2.13.bb |    2 +-
 3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
Signature · 1 line
1.7.4.1
author
#1 lore raw

PATCH 1/2 bitbake.conf: update OLDEST_KERNEL to 2.6.0

Since we no longer support 2.4, update this setting to 2.6.0. (This affects eglibc's kernel support).

Signed-off-by Paul Eggleton <[email protected]>
---
 meta/conf/bitbake.conf |    2 +-
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
meta/conf/bitbake.conf +1 -1
index bdaa35d..56a867b 100644
@@ -349,7 +349,7 @@ SDKPATHNATIVE = "${SDKPATH}/sysroots/${SDK_SYS}"
 # Kernel info.
 ##################################################################
 
-OLDEST_KERNEL = "2.4.0"
+OLDEST_KERNEL = "2.6.0"
 STAGING_KERNEL_DIR = "${STAGING_DIR_HOST}/kernel"
 
 ##################################################################
Signature · 1 line
1.7.4.1
author
#15 lore raw

PATCH 2/2 eglibc: bump PR for OLDEST_KERNEL change

In reply to Paul Eggleton

Bump PR as eglibc should be rebuilt for the new OLDEST_KERNEL value.

Signed-off-by Paul Eggleton <[email protected]>
---
 meta/recipes-core/eglibc/eglibc_2.12.bb |    2 +-
 meta/recipes-core/eglibc/eglibc_2.13.bb |    2 +-
 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
meta/recipes-core/eglibc/eglibc_2.12.bb +1 -1
index 85d58fa..fd7b485 100644
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 require eglibc.inc
 
 DEPENDS += "gperf-native"
-PR = "r18"
+PR = "r19"
 
 SRCREV = "14158"
meta/recipes-core/eglibc/eglibc_2.13.bb +1 -1
index 7986131..be65787 100644
@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ SRCREV = "14157"
 
 DEPENDS += "gperf-native"
 FILESPATHPKG =. "eglibc-svn:"
-PR = "r5"
+PR = "r6"
 PR_append = "+svnr${SRCPV}"
 
 EGLIBC_BRANCH="eglibc-2_13"
Signature · 1 line
1.7.4.1
#2 lore raw

Re: [PATCH 1/2] bitbake.conf: update OLDEST_KERNEL to 2.6.0

In reply to Paul Eggleton

angstrom has been setting it to 2.6.16 for some years now, I forget which bug that fixed over 2.6.0

Op 7 jul. 2011 om 14:11 heeft Paul Eggleton <[email protected]> het volgende geschreven:

Quoted 29 lines

Since we no longer support 2.4, update this setting to 2.6.0. (This affects eglibc's kernel support).

Signed-off-by Paul Eggleton <[email protected]>

---
meta/conf/bitbake.conf | 2 +-

1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
meta/conf/bitbake.conf +1 -1
index bdaa35d..56a867b 100644
@@ -349,7 +349,7 @@ SDKPATHNATIVE = "${SDKPATH}/sysroots/${SDK_SYS}"
 # Kernel info.
 ##################################################################
 
-OLDEST_KERNEL = "2.4.0"
+OLDEST_KERNEL = "2.6.0"

STAGING_KERNEL_DIR = "${STAGING_DIR_HOST}/kernel"

##################################################################

Signature · 7 lines
1.7.4.1


_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
author
#3 lore raw

Re: [PATCH 1/2] bitbake.conf: update OLDEST_KERNEL to 2.6.0

Quoted 2 lines · On Thursday 07 July 2011 15:24:46 Koen Kooi wrote:

angstrom has been setting it to 2.6.16 for some years now, I forget which bug that fixed over 2.6.0

Personally I don't know enough about which crusty old 2.6 kernels people are still using out there, so I figured 2.6.0 was the safest bet.

A trawl of the OE history turns up these two:

-----------------------------------
commit 8b0202e6e3f90a772df301e8522f9deb03e50132

Author: Tom Rini <[email protected]>
Date:   Wed Mar 3 12:17:38 2010 -0700

glibc*.inc: Bump OLDEST_KERNEL to 2.6.16

Per glibc's ChangeLog, 2.6.16 is the minimum required by at least glibc 2.9
Prior to this, it was a murky 2.6.14 + patches to 2.6.16 (when it was all upstream).
-----------------------------------
commit 794e8652f5c4fef71a8b9ab834b39f75b99f9420

Author: Koen Kooi <[email protected]>
Date:   Thu May 21 20:30:37 2009 +0200

Angstrom 2009.X: set OLDEST_KERNEL to 2.6.16 to avoid problems with
ppoll()
-----------------------------------

Any further comments/info? Should we be using 2.6.16 in oe-core as well?

Cheers,
Paul

Signature · 2 lines
Paul Eggleton
Intel Open Source Technology Centre
#4 lore raw

Re: [PATCH 1/2] bitbake.conf: update OLDEST_KERNEL to 2.6.0

Quoted 22 lines · Paul Eggleton
Quoted 2 lines · On Thursday 07 July 2011 15:24:46 Koen Kooi wrote:

angstrom has been setting it to 2.6.16 for some years now, I forget which bug that fixed over 2.6.0

Personally I don't know enough about which crusty old 2.6 kernels people are still using out there, so I figured 2.6.0 was the safest bet.

A trawl of the OE history turns up these two:

-----------------------------------
commit 8b0202e6e3f90a772df301e8522f9deb03e50132

Author: Tom Rini <[email protected]>
Date:   Wed Mar 3 12:17:38 2010 -0700

glibc*.inc: Bump OLDEST_KERNEL to 2.6.16

Per glibc's ChangeLog, 2.6.16 is the minimum required by at least glibc 2.9
Prior to this, it was a murky 2.6.14 + patches to 2.6.16 (when it was all upstream).
-----------------------------------
commit 794e8652f5c4fef71a8b9ab834b39f75b99f9420

Quoted 8 lines
Author: Koen Kooi <[email protected]>
Date:   Thu May 21 20:30:37 2009 +0200

Angstrom 2009.X: set OLDEST_KERNEL to 2.6.16 to avoid problems with
ppoll()
-----------------------------------

Any further comments/info? Should we be using 2.6.16 in oe-core as well?

I'd suggest yes...

Cheers,

Richard

#5 lore raw

Re: [PATCH 1/2] bitbake.conf: update OLDEST_KERNEL to 2.6.0

In reply to Paul Eggleton
Quoted 6 lines · Paul Eggleton
Quoted 2 lines · On Thursday 07 July 2011 15:24:46 Koen Kooi wrote:

angstrom has been setting it to 2.6.16 for some years now, I forget which bug that fixed over 2.6.0

Personally I don't know enough about which crusty old 2.6 kernels people are still using out there, so I figured 2.6.0 was the safest bet.

If oe-core never supported older kernel than 2.6.37 then setting it to 2.6.37 would be better IMO

Quoted 28 lines

A trawl of the OE history turns up these two:

-----------------------------------
commit 8b0202e6e3f90a772df301e8522f9deb03e50132

Author: Tom Rini<[email protected]>
Date:   Wed Mar 3 12:17:38 2010 -0700

glibc*.inc: Bump OLDEST_KERNEL to 2.6.16

Per glibc's ChangeLog, 2.6.16 is the minimum required by at least glibc 2.9
Prior to this, it was a murky 2.6.14 + patches to 2.6.16 (when it was all upstream).
-----------------------------------
commit 794e8652f5c4fef71a8b9ab834b39f75b99f9420

Author: Koen Kooi<[email protected]>
Date:   Thu May 21 20:30:37 2009 +0200

Angstrom 2009.X: set OLDEST_KERNEL to 2.6.16 to avoid problems with
ppoll()
-----------------------------------

Any further comments/info? Should we be using 2.6.16 in oe-core as well?

Cheers,
Paul

author
#6 lore raw

Re: [PATCH 1/2] bitbake.conf: update OLDEST_KERNEL to 2.6.0

Quoted 2 lines · On Friday 08 July 2011 06:21:16 Khem Raj wrote:

If oe-core never supported older kernel than 2.6.37 then setting it to 2.6.37 would be better IMO

It's not necessarily just about oe-core - it's about what layers get used on top, and some of those will be using kernels older than 2.6.37.

Cheers,
Paul

Signature · 2 lines
Paul Eggleton
Intel Open Source Technology Centre
#7 lore raw

Re: [PATCH 1/2] bitbake.conf: update OLDEST_KERNEL to 2.6.0

Quoted 6 lines · Paul Eggleton
Quoted 2 lines · On Friday 08 July 2011 06:21:16 Khem Raj wrote:

If oe-core never supported older kernel than 2.6.37 then setting it to 2.6.37 would be better IMO

It's not necessarily just about oe-core - it's about what layers get used on top, and some of those will be using kernels older than 2.6.37.

It's very rare that we get a free hand in the choice of kernel version. We get stuck with whichever version the silicon vendor chooses to support, so it would be bad for us if we couldn't use an older kernel in our layers.

Cheers,

Chris.

author
#8 lore raw

Re: [PATCH 1/2] bitbake.conf: update OLDEST_KERNEL to 2.6.0

Quoted 4 lines · On Friday 08 July 2011 09:46:34 Chris Elston wrote:

It's very rare that we get a free hand in the choice of kernel version. We get stuck with whichever version the silicon vendor chooses to support, so it would be bad for us if we couldn't use an older kernel in our layers.

Just out of interest, what's the oldest kernel you have to deal with in your current/recent projects?

Cheers,
Paul

Signature · 2 lines
Paul Eggleton
Intel Open Source Technology Centre
#9 lore raw

Re: [PATCH 1/2] bitbake.conf: update OLDEST_KERNEL to 2.6.0

In reply to Paul Eggleton
Quoted 6 lines · Paul Eggleton
Quoted 2 lines · On Friday 08 July 2011 06:21:16 Khem Raj wrote:

If oe-core never supported older kernel than 2.6.37 then setting it to 2.6.37 would be better IMO

It's not necessarily just about oe-core - it's about what layers get used on top, and some of those will be using kernels older than 2.6.37.

They can always provide their own OLDEST_KERNEL setting, though. To some extent I think it's a bit academic what the default in oe-core is.

p.

author
#10 lore raw

Re: [PATCH 1/2] bitbake.conf: update OLDEST_KERNEL to 2.6.0

Quoted 2 lines · On Friday 08 July 2011 10:53:49 Phil Blundell wrote:

They can always provide their own OLDEST_KERNEL setting, though. To some extent I think it's a bit academic what the default in oe-core is.

Yes, but let's have a sensible default value, in particular that will allow the majority not to experience subtle problems that they will have to spend time tracking down. Many people coming to OE fresh will not know this setting even exists - I only discovered it the other day by accident.

Cheers,
Paul

Signature · 2 lines
Paul Eggleton
Intel Open Source Technology Centre
#11 lore raw

Re: [PATCH 1/2] bitbake.conf: update OLDEST_KERNEL to 2.6.0

Quoted 8 lines · Paul Eggleton
Quoted 2 lines · On Friday 08 July 2011 10:53:49 Phil Blundell wrote:

They can always provide their own OLDEST_KERNEL setting, though. To some extent I think it's a bit academic what the default in oe-core is.

Yes, but let's have a sensible default value, in particular that will allow the majority not to experience subtle problems that they will have to spend time tracking down. Many people coming to OE fresh will not know this setting even exists - I only discovered it the other day by accident.

If OLDEST_KERNEL is set to a value that's too new then the failure you get is anything but subtle: glibc will just print "kernel too old" and exit. I guess we could enhance that message to refer directly to OLDEST_KERNEL to make it a bit more obvious what you need to do. Also, we could teach kernel.bbclass to issue a diagnostic if you try to build a kernel that's older than OLDEST_KERNEL.

p.

author
#12 lore raw

Re: [PATCH 1/2] bitbake.conf: update OLDEST_KERNEL to 2.6.0

Quoted 3 lines · On Friday 08 July 2011 11:12:12 Phil Blundell wrote:

If OLDEST_KERNEL is set to a value that's too new then the failure you get is anything but subtle: glibc will just print "kernel too old" and exit.

OK, I had just assumed you would just get errors about missing syscalls, good to know that it would be more obvious than that.

Quoted 4 lines

I guess we could enhance that message to refer directly to OLDEST_KERNEL to make it a bit more obvious what you need to do. Also, we could teach kernel.bbclass to issue a diagnostic if you try to build a kernel that's older than OLDEST_KERNEL.

These sound like good ideas. I'll add them to my todo list to have a look at if nobody else gets there first.

Cheers,
Paul

Signature · 2 lines
Paul Eggleton
Intel Open Source Technology Centre
#13 lore raw

Re: [PATCH 1/2] bitbake.conf: update OLDEST_KERNEL to 2.6.0

In reply to Paul Eggleton
Quoted 6 lines · Paul Eggleton
Quoted 2 lines · On Friday 08 July 2011 06:21:16 Khem Raj wrote:

If oe-core never supported older kernel than 2.6.37 then setting it to 2.6.37 would be better IMO

It's not necessarily just about oe-core - it's about what layers get used on top, and some of those will be using kernels older than 2.6.37.

Its similar to a situation where some of the layers might be using gcc older than 4.6.0 but we still chose 4.6.0
in default distro vars. There always is a possibility to override it if user has to.

Quoted 9 lines

Cheers,
Paul

--

Paul Eggleton
Intel Open Source Technology Centre

#14 lore raw

Re: [PATCH 1/2] bitbake.conf: update OLDEST_KERNEL to 2.6.0

Quoted 6 lines · Khem Raj
Quoted 4 lines · Paul Eggleton
Quoted 2 lines · On Friday 08 July 2011 06:21:16 Khem Raj wrote:

If oe-core never supported older kernel than 2.6.37 then setting it to 2.6.37 would be better IMO

Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 2 lines

It's not necessarily just about oe-core - it's about what layers get used on top, and some of those will be using kernels older than 2.6.37.

Its similar to a situation where some of the layers might be using gcc older than 4.6.0 but we still chose 4.6.0
in default distro vars. There always is a possibility to override it if user has to.

For now, I've merged the 2.6.16 patch since there seem to be good reasons for making things at least that recent. Its certainly better than 2.4! :)

Cheers,

Richard