[07/16] Fix lttng-ust for powerpc64

Submitted by Matthew McClintock on Sept. 29, 2011, 4:21 a.m. | Patch ID: 12377

Details

Message ID 1317270070-14250-7-git-send-email-msm@freescale.com
State New, archived
Headers show

Commit Message

Matthew McClintock Sept. 29, 2011, 4:21 a.m. 
Signed-off-by: Matthew McClintock <msm@freescale.com>
---
 meta/recipes-kernel/lttng/fix-powerpc64.patch |   17 +++++++++++++++++
 meta/recipes-kernel/lttng/lttng-ust_0.15.bb   |    3 ++-
 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 meta/recipes-kernel/lttng/fix-powerpc64.patch

Patch hide | download patch | download mbox 

diff --git a/meta/recipes-kernel/lttng/fix-powerpc64.patch b/meta/recipes-kernel/lttng/fix-powerpc64.patch
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..d347979
--- /dev/null
+++ b/meta/recipes-kernel/lttng/fix-powerpc64.patch
@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@ 
+Upstream-Status: Inappropriate configuration
+
+Add bit to detect if we are running on powerpc64 and treat it the
+same as ppc64
+
+Index: ust-0.15/configure.ac
+===================================================================
+--- ust-0.15.orig/configure.ac
++++ ust-0.15/configure.ac
+@@ -111,6 +111,7 @@ changequote([,])dnl
+ 	x86_64) LIBFORMAT="elf64-x86-64" ;;
+ 	powerpc) LIBFORMAT="elf32-powerpc" ;;
+ 	ppc64) LIBFORMAT="elf64-powerpc" ;;
++	powerpc64) LIBFORMAT="elf64-powerpc" ;;
+ 	s390) LIBFORMAT="elf32-s390" ;;
+ 	s390x) LIBFORMAT="elf64-s390" ;;
+         armv5) LIBFORMAT="elf32-littlearm"; NO_UNALIGNED_ACCESS=1 ;;
diff --git a/meta/recipes-kernel/lttng/lttng-ust_0.15.bb b/meta/recipes-kernel/lttng/lttng-ust_0.15.bb
index 915e619..9dd4658 100644
--- a/meta/recipes-kernel/lttng/lttng-ust_0.15.bb
+++ b/meta/recipes-kernel/lttng/lttng-ust_0.15.bb
@@ -10,9 +10,10 @@  LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://COPYING;md5=e647752e045a8c45b6f583771bd561ef \
 
 DEPENDS = "liburcu"
 
-PR = "r2"
+PR = "r3"
 
 SRC_URI = "http://lttng.org/files/ust/releases/ust-${PV}.tar.gz"
+SRC_URI_append_powerpc64 = " file://fix-powerpc64.patch"
 
 SRC_URI[md5sum] = "86c71486a70695dc0b2171ad16fc82b3" 
 SRC_URI[sha256sum] = "7ff7ecdc051c0649d5fd21b5ceff4895ca95dc34f14cdc04e50de13cfd1903c5"

Comments

Richard Purdie Sept. 29, 2011, 3:50 p.m. 
On Wed, 2011-09-28 at 23:21 -0500, Matthew McClintock wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Matthew McClintock <msm@freescale.com>
> ---
>  meta/recipes-kernel/lttng/fix-powerpc64.patch |   17 +++++++++++++++++
>  meta/recipes-kernel/lttng/lttng-ust_0.15.bb   |    3 ++-
>  2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>  create mode 100644 meta/recipes-kernel/lttng/fix-powerpc64.patch
> 
> diff --git a/meta/recipes-kernel/lttng/fix-powerpc64.patch b/meta/recipes-kernel/lttng/fix-powerpc64.patch
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..d347979
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/meta/recipes-kernel/lttng/fix-powerpc64.patch
> @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
> +Upstream-Status: Inappropriate configuration

Is this really inappropriate for upstream? It looks reasonable to me...

> +
> +Add bit to detect if we are running on powerpc64 and treat it the
> +same as ppc64
> +
> +Index: ust-0.15/configure.ac
> +===================================================================
> +--- ust-0.15.orig/configure.ac
> ++++ ust-0.15/configure.ac
> +@@ -111,6 +111,7 @@ changequote([,])dnl
> + 	x86_64) LIBFORMAT="elf64-x86-64" ;;
> + 	powerpc) LIBFORMAT="elf32-powerpc" ;;
> + 	ppc64) LIBFORMAT="elf64-powerpc" ;;
> ++	powerpc64) LIBFORMAT="elf64-powerpc" ;;
> + 	s390) LIBFORMAT="elf32-s390" ;;
> + 	s390x) LIBFORMAT="elf64-s390" ;;
> +         armv5) LIBFORMAT="elf32-littlearm"; NO_UNALIGNED_ACCESS=1 ;;
> diff --git a/meta/recipes-kernel/lttng/lttng-ust_0.15.bb b/meta/recipes-kernel/lttng/lttng-ust_0.15.bb
> index 915e619..9dd4658 100644
> --- a/meta/recipes-kernel/lttng/lttng-ust_0.15.bb
> +++ b/meta/recipes-kernel/lttng/lttng-ust_0.15.bb
> @@ -10,9 +10,10 @@ LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://COPYING;md5=e647752e045a8c45b6f583771bd561ef \
>  
>  DEPENDS = "liburcu"
>  
> -PR = "r2"
> +PR = "r3"
>  
>  SRC_URI = "http://lttng.org/files/ust/releases/ust-${PV}.tar.gz"
> +SRC_URI_append_powerpc64 = " file://fix-powerpc64.patch"

Does this really need to be conditional on powerppc64? Looks like it can
be applied unconditionally...

Cheers,

Richard
McClintock Matthew-B29882 Sept. 29, 2011, 6:21 p.m. 
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Richard Purdie
<richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-09-28 at 23:21 -0500, Matthew McClintock wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Matthew McClintock <msm@freescale.com>
>> ---
>>  meta/recipes-kernel/lttng/fix-powerpc64.patch |   17 +++++++++++++++++
>>  meta/recipes-kernel/lttng/lttng-ust_0.15.bb   |    3 ++-
>>  2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>  create mode 100644 meta/recipes-kernel/lttng/fix-powerpc64.patch
>>
>> diff --git a/meta/recipes-kernel/lttng/fix-powerpc64.patch b/meta/recipes-kernel/lttng/fix-powerpc64.patch
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000..d347979
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/meta/recipes-kernel/lttng/fix-powerpc64.patch
>> @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
>> +Upstream-Status: Inappropriate configuration
>
> Is this really inappropriate for upstream? It looks reasonable to me...

Seems reasonable. What is the policy on this? Can I mark it "this
should be upstreamed" or must I mark it "this was sent upstream" and
then upstream the change?

>
>> +
>> +Add bit to detect if we are running on powerpc64 and treat it the
>> +same as ppc64
>> +
>> +Index: ust-0.15/configure.ac
>> +===================================================================
>> +--- ust-0.15.orig/configure.ac
>> ++++ ust-0.15/configure.ac
>> +@@ -111,6 +111,7 @@ changequote([,])dnl
>> +     x86_64) LIBFORMAT="elf64-x86-64" ;;
>> +     powerpc) LIBFORMAT="elf32-powerpc" ;;
>> +     ppc64) LIBFORMAT="elf64-powerpc" ;;
>> ++    powerpc64) LIBFORMAT="elf64-powerpc" ;;
>> +     s390) LIBFORMAT="elf32-s390" ;;
>> +     s390x) LIBFORMAT="elf64-s390" ;;
>> +         armv5) LIBFORMAT="elf32-littlearm"; NO_UNALIGNED_ACCESS=1 ;;
>> diff --git a/meta/recipes-kernel/lttng/lttng-ust_0.15.bb b/meta/recipes-kernel/lttng/lttng-ust_0.15.bb
>> index 915e619..9dd4658 100644
>> --- a/meta/recipes-kernel/lttng/lttng-ust_0.15.bb
>> +++ b/meta/recipes-kernel/lttng/lttng-ust_0.15.bb
>> @@ -10,9 +10,10 @@ LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://COPYING;md5=e647752e045a8c45b6f583771bd561ef \
>>
>>  DEPENDS = "liburcu"
>>
>> -PR = "r2"
>> +PR = "r3"
>>
>>  SRC_URI = "http://lttng.org/files/ust/releases/ust-${PV}.tar.gz"
>> +SRC_URI_append_powerpc64 = " file://fix-powerpc64.patch"
>
> Does this really need to be conditional on powerppc64? Looks like it can
> be applied unconditionally...

True, was trying to minimally effect other stuff. But I take it by the
comment you prefer this be done away with.

-M
Richard Purdie Sept. 29, 2011, 6:46 p.m. 
On Thu, 2011-09-29 at 18:21 +0000, McClintock Matthew-B29882 wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Richard Purdie
> <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2011-09-28 at 23:21 -0500, Matthew McClintock wrote:
> >> Signed-off-by: Matthew McClintock <msm@freescale.com>
> >> ---
> >>  meta/recipes-kernel/lttng/fix-powerpc64.patch |   17 +++++++++++++++++
> >>  meta/recipes-kernel/lttng/lttng-ust_0.15.bb   |    3 ++-
> >>  2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> >>  create mode 100644 meta/recipes-kernel/lttng/fix-powerpc64.patch
> >>
> >> diff --git a/meta/recipes-kernel/lttng/fix-powerpc64.patch b/meta/recipes-kernel/lttng/fix-powerpc64.patch
> >> new file mode 100644
> >> index 0000000..d347979
> >> --- /dev/null
> >> +++ b/meta/recipes-kernel/lttng/fix-powerpc64.patch
> >> @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
> >> +Upstream-Status: Inappropriate configuration
> >
> > Is this really inappropriate for upstream? It looks reasonable to me...
> 
> Seems reasonable. What is the policy on this? Can I mark it "this
> should be upstreamed" or must I mark it "this was sent upstream" and
> then upstream the change?

There is some marking for "should be upstreamed"/upstreamable.

> >> +Add bit to detect if we are running on powerpc64 and treat it the
> >> +same as ppc64
> >> +
> >> +Index: ust-0.15/configure.ac
> >> +===================================================================
> >> +--- ust-0.15.orig/configure.ac
> >> ++++ ust-0.15/configure.ac
> >> +@@ -111,6 +111,7 @@ changequote([,])dnl
> >> +     x86_64) LIBFORMAT="elf64-x86-64" ;;
> >> +     powerpc) LIBFORMAT="elf32-powerpc" ;;
> >> +     ppc64) LIBFORMAT="elf64-powerpc" ;;
> >> ++    powerpc64) LIBFORMAT="elf64-powerpc" ;;
> >> +     s390) LIBFORMAT="elf32-s390" ;;
> >> +     s390x) LIBFORMAT="elf64-s390" ;;
> >> +         armv5) LIBFORMAT="elf32-littlearm"; NO_UNALIGNED_ACCESS=1 ;;
> >> diff --git a/meta/recipes-kernel/lttng/lttng-ust_0.15.bb b/meta/recipes-kernel/lttng/lttng-ust_0.15.bb
> >> index 915e619..9dd4658 100644
> >> --- a/meta/recipes-kernel/lttng/lttng-ust_0.15.bb
> >> +++ b/meta/recipes-kernel/lttng/lttng-ust_0.15.bb
> >> @@ -10,9 +10,10 @@ LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://COPYING;md5=e647752e045a8c45b6f583771bd561ef \
> >>
> >>  DEPENDS = "liburcu"
> >>
> >> -PR = "r2"
> >> +PR = "r3"
> >>
> >>  SRC_URI = "http://lttng.org/files/ust/releases/ust-${PV}.tar.gz"
> >> +SRC_URI_append_powerpc64 = " file://fix-powerpc64.patch"
> >
> > Does this really need to be conditional on powerppc64? Looks like it can
> > be applied unconditionally...
> 
> True, was trying to minimally effect other stuff. But I take it by the
> comment you prefer this be done away with.

Sometimes minimally affecting other code is good. In this its obviously
not going to break anything else so it can be universal. The risk of
minimal application is fewer people testing it, e.g. when versions get
upgraded.

Cheers,

Richard
Saul Wold Sept. 30, 2011, 4:58 p.m. 
On 09/29/2011 11:46 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-09-29 at 18:21 +0000, McClintock Matthew-B29882 wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Richard Purdie
>> <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>  wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2011-09-28 at 23:21 -0500, Matthew McClintock wrote:
>>>> Signed-off-by: Matthew McClintock<msm@freescale.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>   meta/recipes-kernel/lttng/fix-powerpc64.patch |   17 +++++++++++++++++
>>>>   meta/recipes-kernel/lttng/lttng-ust_0.15.bb   |    3 ++-
>>>>   2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>>>   create mode 100644 meta/recipes-kernel/lttng/fix-powerpc64.patch
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/meta/recipes-kernel/lttng/fix-powerpc64.patch b/meta/recipes-kernel/lttng/fix-powerpc64.patch
>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>> index 0000000..d347979
>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>> +++ b/meta/recipes-kernel/lttng/fix-powerpc64.patch
>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
>>>> +Upstream-Status: Inappropriate configuration
>>>
>>> Is this really inappropriate for upstream? It looks reasonable to me...
>>
>> Seems reasonable. What is the policy on this? Can I mark it "this
>> should be upstreamed" or must I mark it "this was sent upstream" and
>> then upstream the change?
>
> There is some marking for "should be upstreamed"/upstreamable.
>
The marking would be "Pending", this indicates that it should be 
attempted, if it gets up streamed then marked Accepted with a pointer to 
the potential upstream version or ref.

Thanks
	Sau!

>>>> +Add bit to detect if we are running on powerpc64 and treat it the
>>>> +same as ppc64
>>>> +
>>>> +Index: ust-0.15/configure.ac
>>>> +===================================================================
>>>> +--- ust-0.15.orig/configure.ac
>>>> ++++ ust-0.15/configure.ac
>>>> +@@ -111,6 +111,7 @@ changequote([,])dnl
>>>> +     x86_64) LIBFORMAT="elf64-x86-64" ;;
>>>> +     powerpc) LIBFORMAT="elf32-powerpc" ;;
>>>> +     ppc64) LIBFORMAT="elf64-powerpc" ;;
>>>> ++    powerpc64) LIBFORMAT="elf64-powerpc" ;;
>>>> +     s390) LIBFORMAT="elf32-s390" ;;
>>>> +     s390x) LIBFORMAT="elf64-s390" ;;
>>>> +         armv5) LIBFORMAT="elf32-littlearm"; NO_UNALIGNED_ACCESS=1 ;;
>>>> diff --git a/meta/recipes-kernel/lttng/lttng-ust_0.15.bb b/meta/recipes-kernel/lttng/lttng-ust_0.15.bb
>>>> index 915e619..9dd4658 100644
>>>> --- a/meta/recipes-kernel/lttng/lttng-ust_0.15.bb
>>>> +++ b/meta/recipes-kernel/lttng/lttng-ust_0.15.bb
>>>> @@ -10,9 +10,10 @@ LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://COPYING;md5=e647752e045a8c45b6f583771bd561ef \
>>>>
>>>>   DEPENDS = "liburcu"
>>>>
>>>> -PR = "r2"
>>>> +PR = "r3"
>>>>
>>>>   SRC_URI = "http://lttng.org/files/ust/releases/ust-${PV}.tar.gz"
>>>> +SRC_URI_append_powerpc64 = " file://fix-powerpc64.patch"
>>>
>>> Does this really need to be conditional on powerppc64? Looks like it can
>>> be applied unconditionally...
>>
>> True, was trying to minimally effect other stuff. But I take it by the
>> comment you prefer this be done away with.
>
> Sometimes minimally affecting other code is good. In this its obviously
> not going to break anything else so it can be universal. The risk of
> minimal application is fewer people testing it, e.g. when versions get
> upgraded.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Richard
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
>
McClintock Matthew-B29882 Sept. 30, 2011, 5:19 p.m. 
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:58 AM, Saul Wold <saul.wold@intel.com> wrote:
>> There is some marking for "should be upstreamed"/upstreamable.
>>
> The marking would be "Pending", this indicates that it should be attempted,
> if it gets up streamed then marked Accepted with a pointer to the potential
> upstream version or ref.

Thanks, the next version was changed to Submitted as I sent a patch upstream.

-M