Patchwork [1/2] perf: rename perf.inc to perf-features.inc

From: Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@linux.intel.com>

The contents of perf.inc are really specific to perf features and
shouldn't use the generic perf.inc name, which implies common recipe
code.  It's always confusing to open up this file and find out that's
not what it is.

Signed-off-by: Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@linux.intel.com>
---
 meta/recipes-kernel/perf/{perf.inc => perf-features.inc} | 0
 meta/recipes-kernel/perf/perf_3.4.bb                     | 2 +-
 2 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
 rename meta/recipes-kernel/perf/{perf.inc => perf-features.inc} (100%)

From: Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@linux.intel.com>

There's nothing kernel-version-specific about the perf_3.4 recipe, so
it's actually misnamed and misleading now that it also gets used with
the 3.8 kernel.

Since the recipe isn't tied to a specific PV, and simply uses
whatever's in STAGING_KERNEL_DIR, there's no reason to add anything
else either to the bare PN, so just use that as the recipe name.

Signed-off-by: Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@linux.intel.com>
---
 meta/recipes-kernel/perf/{perf_3.4.bb => perf.bb} | 0
 1 file changed, 0 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
 rename meta/recipes-kernel/perf/{perf_3.4.bb => perf.bb} (100%)

diff --git a/meta/recipes-kernel/perf/perf_3.4.bb b/meta/recipes-kernel/perf/perf.bb
similarity index 100%
rename from meta/recipes-kernel/perf/perf_3.4.bb
rename to meta/recipes-kernel/perf/perf.bb

On 03/07/2013 04:39 PM, tom.zanussi@linux.intel.com wrote:
> From: Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@linux.intel.com>
>
> There's nothing kernel-version-specific about the perf_3.4 recipe, so
> it's actually misnamed and misleading now that it also gets used with
> the 3.8 kernel.
>
> Since the recipe isn't tied to a specific PV, and simply uses
> whatever's in STAGING_KERNEL_DIR, there's no reason to add anything
> else either to the bare PN, so just use that as the recipe name.
>
This did not quite work out correctly, since the package name has now 
gone backwards since the default PV for a recipe is 1.0 when nothing is 
set on the recipe file name.

Is there a way to sort this out such that it picks up an incrementing PV 
from the kernel recipe?

As it stands now, the PV has gone from 3.4 -> 1.0.

Thanks for looking after this.

Sau!

> Signed-off-by: Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@linux.intel.com>
> ---
>   meta/recipes-kernel/perf/{perf_3.4.bb => perf.bb} | 0
>   1 file changed, 0 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>   rename meta/recipes-kernel/perf/{perf_3.4.bb => perf.bb} (100%)
>
> diff --git a/meta/recipes-kernel/perf/perf_3.4.bb b/meta/recipes-kernel/perf/perf.bb
> similarity index 100%
> rename from meta/recipes-kernel/perf/perf_3.4.bb
> rename to meta/recipes-kernel/perf/perf.bb
>

On Mon, 2013-03-11 at 16:54 -0700, Saul Wold wrote:
> On 03/07/2013 04:39 PM, tom.zanussi@linux.intel.com wrote:
> > From: Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@linux.intel.com>
> >
> > There's nothing kernel-version-specific about the perf_3.4 recipe, so
> > it's actually misnamed and misleading now that it also gets used with
> > the 3.8 kernel.
> >
> > Since the recipe isn't tied to a specific PV, and simply uses
> > whatever's in STAGING_KERNEL_DIR, there's no reason to add anything
> > else either to the bare PN, so just use that as the recipe name.
> >
> This did not quite work out correctly, since the package name has now 
> gone backwards since the default PV for a recipe is 1.0 when nothing is 
> set on the recipe file name.
> 
> Is there a way to sort this out such that it picks up an incrementing PV 
> from the kernel recipe?
> 
> As it stands now, the PV has gone from 3.4 -> 1.0.
> 
> Thanks for looking after this.

As a hint on how to do this we need to read the kernel version and then
set PKGV just prior to or at the start of do_package time.

The logs will show 1.0 as the version but the final packages will have
the kernel version.

Cheers,

Richard

On 03/11/2013 04:54 PM, Saul Wold wrote:
> On 03/07/2013 04:39 PM, tom.zanussi@linux.intel.com wrote:
>> From: Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@linux.intel.com>
>>
>> There's nothing kernel-version-specific about the perf_3.4 recipe, so
>> it's actually misnamed and misleading now that it also gets used with
>> the 3.8 kernel.
>>
>> Since the recipe isn't tied to a specific PV, and simply uses
>> whatever's in STAGING_KERNEL_DIR, there's no reason to add anything
>> else either to the bare PN, so just use that as the recipe name.
>>
> This did not quite work out correctly, since the package name has now 
> gone backwards since the default PV for a recipe is 1.0 when nothing is 
> set on the recipe file name.
> 
> Is there a way to sort this out such that it picks up an incrementing PV 
> from the kernel recipe?
> 
> As it stands now, the PV has gone from 3.4 -> 1.0.
> 
> Thanks for looking after this.

This is what PE is for right? Sounds like we need an epoch bump.

--
Darren hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center
Yocto Project - Technical Lead - Linux Kernel