mtd-utils: upgrade 2.0.2 -> 2.1.0

Submitted by Denys Dmytriyenko on June 11, 2019, 9:41 p.m. | Patch ID: 162126

Details

Message ID 1560289312-19244-1-git-send-email-denis@denix.org
State Master Next
Commit d033315283c97d18b1ed25f873431d2bf1010e5e
Headers show

Commit Message

Denys Dmytriyenko June 11, 2019, 9:41 p.m.
From: Denys Dmytriyenko <denys@ti.com>

* 0001-Revert-Return-correct-error-number-in-ubi_get_vol_in.patch is upstreamed
* Now requires openssl:
| In file included from ../git/ubifs-utils/mkfs.ubifs/mkfs.ubifs.c:25:
| ../git/ubifs-utils/mkfs.ubifs/mkfs.ubifs.h:49:10: fatal error: openssl/rand.h: No such file or directory
|  #include <openssl/rand.h>
|           ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| compilation terminated.
| Makefile:3457: recipe for target 'ubifs-utils/mkfs.ubifs/mkfs_ubifs-mkfs.ubifs.o' failed
| make: *** [ubifs-utils/mkfs.ubifs/mkfs_ubifs-mkfs.ubifs.o] Error 1

Signed-off-by: Denys Dmytriyenko <denys@ti.com>
---
 ...rn-correct-error-number-in-ubi_get_vol_in.patch | 92 ----------------------
 meta/recipes-devtools/mtd/mtd-utils_git.bb         |  7 +-
 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 96 deletions(-)
 delete mode 100644 meta/recipes-devtools/mtd/mtd-utils/0001-Revert-Return-correct-error-number-in-ubi_get_vol_in.patch

Patch hide | download patch | download mbox

diff --git a/meta/recipes-devtools/mtd/mtd-utils/0001-Revert-Return-correct-error-number-in-ubi_get_vol_in.patch b/meta/recipes-devtools/mtd/mtd-utils/0001-Revert-Return-correct-error-number-in-ubi_get_vol_in.patch
deleted file mode 100644
index 4ece56b..0000000
--- a/meta/recipes-devtools/mtd/mtd-utils/0001-Revert-Return-correct-error-number-in-ubi_get_vol_in.patch
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,92 +0,0 @@ 
-From 0f833ac73ad631248826386e2918d8571ecf0347 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
-From: David Oberhollenzer <david.oberhollenzer@sigma-star.at>
-Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2018 16:45:22 +0200
-Subject: [PATCH] Revert "Return correct error number in ubi_get_vol_info1"
-
-This reverts commit dede98ffb706676309488d7cc660f569548d5930.
-
-The original commit tried to fix a descrepancy between the implementation
-and the documentation by making the implementation comply.
-
-When making the change, it was overlooked, that ubinfo and ubirename were
-written against the implementation instead of the behaviour specified by
-the documentation. So were further internal functions like
-ubi_get_vol_info1_nm which further breaks ubirmvol.
-
-A report with an outline of a resulting problem can be read on
-the mailing list:
-
-http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/2018-June/081562.html
-
-From the report:
-
-steps to reproduce: have mtd-utils 2.0.1 or 2.0.2
-
-0. make a bunch of ubi volumes in sequential order
-
-ubimkvol /dev/ubi0 -s 64KiB -N test1
-ubimkvol /dev/ubi0 -s 64KiB -N test2
-ubimkvol /dev/ubi0 -s 64KiB -N test3
-ubimkvol /dev/ubi0 -s 64KiB -N test4
-..
-
-1. delete the test1 volume, making a hole in the volume table
-
-ubirmvol /dev/ubi0 -N test1
-
-2. try an affected tool (i.e. "ubirmvol /dev/ubi0 -N test4" )
-
- |root at mr24:/# ubirmvol /dev/ubi0 -N test4
- |ubirmvol: error!: cannot find UBI volume "test4"
- |         error 19 (No such device)
-
-or "ubinfo -a"
-
- | root at mr24:/# ubinfo -a
- | UBI version:                    1
- | Count of UBI devices:           1
- | UBI control device major/minor: 10:59
- | Present UBI devices:            ubi0
- |
- | ubi0
- | Volumes count:                           11
- | Logical eraseblock size:                 15872 bytes, 15.5 KiB
- | Total amount of logical eraseblocks:     1952 (30982144 bytes, 29.5 MiB)
- | Amount of available logical eraseblocks: 75 (1190400 bytes, 1.1 MiB)
- | Maximum count of volumes                 92
- | Count of bad physical eraseblocks:       0
- | Count of reserved physical eraseblocks:  40
- | Current maximum erase counter value:     984
- | Minimum input/output unit size:          512 bytes
- | Character device major/minor:            251:0
- | ubinfo: error!: libubi failed to probe volume 5 on ubi0
- |        error 19 (No such device)
- | Present volumes:                         0, 1, 2, 3, 4root at mr24:/#
-
-Reported-by: Christian Lamparter <chunkeey@gmail.com>
-Signed-off-by: David Oberhollenzer <david.oberhollenzer@sigma-star.at>
-Upstream-Status: Accepted [http://git.infradead.org/mtd-utils.git/commit/0f833ac73ad631248826386e2918d8571ecf0347]
----
- lib/libubi.c | 5 +----
- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)
-
-diff --git a/lib/libubi.c b/lib/libubi.c
-index b50e68a..978b433 100644
---- a/lib/libubi.c
-+++ b/lib/libubi.c
-@@ -1240,11 +1240,8 @@ int ubi_get_vol_info1(libubi_t desc, int dev_num, int vol_id,
- 	info->dev_num = dev_num;
- 	info->vol_id = vol_id;
- 
--	if (vol_get_major(lib, dev_num, vol_id, &info->major, &info->minor)) {
--		if (errno == ENOENT)
--			errno = ENODEV;
-+	if (vol_get_major(lib, dev_num, vol_id, &info->major, &info->minor))
- 		return -1;
--	}
- 
- 	ret = vol_read_data(lib->vol_type, dev_num, vol_id, buf, 50);
- 	if (ret < 0)
--- 
-2.14.4
-
diff --git a/meta/recipes-devtools/mtd/mtd-utils_git.bb b/meta/recipes-devtools/mtd/mtd-utils_git.bb
index 9ffac2e..1dba224 100644
--- a/meta/recipes-devtools/mtd/mtd-utils_git.bb
+++ b/meta/recipes-devtools/mtd/mtd-utils_git.bb
@@ -7,15 +7,14 @@  LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://COPYING;md5=0636e73ff0215e8d672dc4c32c317bb3 \
 
 inherit autotools pkgconfig update-alternatives
 
-DEPENDS = "zlib e2fsprogs util-linux"
+DEPENDS = "zlib e2fsprogs util-linux openssl"
 RDEPENDS_mtd-utils-tests += "bash"
 
-PV = "2.0.2+${SRCPV}"
+PV = "2.1.0+${SRCPV}"
 
-SRCREV = "bc63d36e39f389c8c17f6a8e9db47f2acc884659"
+SRCREV = "bce86d06d6ed2c03d0a0088a3c96a7a6e5e431db"
 SRC_URI = "git://git.infradead.org/mtd-utils.git \
            file://add-exclusion-to-mkfs-jffs2-git-2.patch \
-           file://0001-Revert-Return-correct-error-number-in-ubi_get_vol_in.patch \
 "
 
 S = "${WORKDIR}/git/"

Comments

Adrian Bunk June 12, 2019, 5:33 a.m.
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 05:41:52PM -0400, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
>...
> * Now requires openssl:
> | In file included from ../git/ubifs-utils/mkfs.ubifs/mkfs.ubifs.c:25:
> | ../git/ubifs-utils/mkfs.ubifs/mkfs.ubifs.h:49:10: fatal error: openssl/rand.h: No such file or directory
> |  #include <openssl/rand.h>
> |           ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> | compilation terminated.
> | Makefile:3457: recipe for target 'ubifs-utils/mkfs.ubifs/mkfs_ubifs-mkfs.ubifs.o' failed
> | make: *** [ubifs-utils/mkfs.ubifs/mkfs_ubifs-mkfs.ubifs.o] Error 1
>...
> -DEPENDS = "zlib e2fsprogs util-linux"
> +DEPENDS = "zlib e2fsprogs util-linux openssl"

It doesn't (and should not) require it unconditionally.

Please backport "mkfs.ubifs: fix build without openssl" from
upstream git instead.

>...
> -PV = "2.0.2+${SRCPV}"
> +PV = "2.1.0+${SRCPV}"
>...

This was already wrong before but now is an opportunity to fix:
Since this is exactly the release, it should be
  PV = "2.1.0"

cu
Adrian
Denys Dmytriyenko June 12, 2019, 10:23 p.m.
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 08:33:26AM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 05:41:52PM -0400, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
> >...
> > * Now requires openssl:
> > | In file included from ../git/ubifs-utils/mkfs.ubifs/mkfs.ubifs.c:25:
> > | ../git/ubifs-utils/mkfs.ubifs/mkfs.ubifs.h:49:10: fatal error: openssl/rand.h: No such file or directory
> > |  #include <openssl/rand.h>
> > |           ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > | compilation terminated.
> > | Makefile:3457: recipe for target 'ubifs-utils/mkfs.ubifs/mkfs_ubifs-mkfs.ubifs.o' failed
> > | make: *** [ubifs-utils/mkfs.ubifs/mkfs_ubifs-mkfs.ubifs.o] Error 1
> >...
> > -DEPENDS = "zlib e2fsprogs util-linux"
> > +DEPENDS = "zlib e2fsprogs util-linux openssl"
> 
> It doesn't (and should not) require it unconditionally.
> 
> Please backport "mkfs.ubifs: fix build without openssl" from
> upstream git instead.
> 
> >...
> > -PV = "2.0.2+${SRCPV}"
> > +PV = "2.1.0+${SRCPV}"
> >...
> 
> This was already wrong before but now is an opportunity to fix:
> Since this is exactly the release, it should be
>   PV = "2.1.0"

So, which is it? Do you want it to be exactly the release, or do you want 
to start backporting fixes from after the release? It doesn't seem to be 
a critical issue to warrant backporting, in my opinion.
Richard Purdie June 12, 2019, 10:26 p.m.
On Wed, 2019-06-12 at 18:23 -0400, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 08:33:26AM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 05:41:52PM -0400, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
> > > ...
> > > * Now requires openssl:
> > > > In file included from ../git/ubifs-
> > > > utils/mkfs.ubifs/mkfs.ubifs.c:25:
> > > > ../git/ubifs-utils/mkfs.ubifs/mkfs.ubifs.h:49:10: fatal error:
> > > > openssl/rand.h: No such file or directory
> > > >  #include <openssl/rand.h>
> > > >           ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > compilation terminated.
> > > > Makefile:3457: recipe for target 'ubifs-
> > > > utils/mkfs.ubifs/mkfs_ubifs-mkfs.ubifs.o' failed
> > > > make: *** [ubifs-utils/mkfs.ubifs/mkfs_ubifs-mkfs.ubifs.o]
> > > > Error 1
> > > ...
> > > -DEPENDS = "zlib e2fsprogs util-linux"
> > > +DEPENDS = "zlib e2fsprogs util-linux openssl"
> > 
> > It doesn't (and should not) require it unconditionally.
> > 
> > Please backport "mkfs.ubifs: fix build without openssl" from
> > upstream git instead.
> > 
> > > ...
> > > -PV = "2.0.2+${SRCPV}"
> > > +PV = "2.1.0+${SRCPV}"
> > > ...
> > 
> > This was already wrong before but now is an opportunity to fix:
> > Since this is exactly the release, it should be
> >   PV = "2.1.0"
> 
> So, which is it? Do you want it to be exactly the release, or do you
> want to start backporting fixes from after the release? It doesn't
> seem to be a critical issue to warrant backporting, in my opinion.

openssl is not a light dependency and is one I'd prefer not to be
adding unless we really need it. Things like this may look/sound
trivial but they inflate build times, image sizes and build complexity.

I'd probably prefer to have the 2.1.0 with a backported patch in this
case if you're after an opinion :)

Cheers,

Richard
Denys Dmytriyenko June 18, 2019, 1:30 a.m.
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 11:26:06PM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Wed, 2019-06-12 at 18:23 -0400, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 08:33:26AM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 05:41:52PM -0400, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
> > > > ...
> > > > * Now requires openssl:
> > > > > In file included from ../git/ubifs-
> > > > > utils/mkfs.ubifs/mkfs.ubifs.c:25:
> > > > > ../git/ubifs-utils/mkfs.ubifs/mkfs.ubifs.h:49:10: fatal error:
> > > > > openssl/rand.h: No such file or directory
> > > > >  #include <openssl/rand.h>
> > > > >           ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > compilation terminated.
> > > > > Makefile:3457: recipe for target 'ubifs-
> > > > > utils/mkfs.ubifs/mkfs_ubifs-mkfs.ubifs.o' failed
> > > > > make: *** [ubifs-utils/mkfs.ubifs/mkfs_ubifs-mkfs.ubifs.o]
> > > > > Error 1
> > > > ...
> > > > -DEPENDS = "zlib e2fsprogs util-linux"
> > > > +DEPENDS = "zlib e2fsprogs util-linux openssl"
> > > 
> > > It doesn't (and should not) require it unconditionally.
> > > 
> > > Please backport "mkfs.ubifs: fix build without openssl" from
> > > upstream git instead.
> > > 
> > > > ...
> > > > -PV = "2.0.2+${SRCPV}"
> > > > +PV = "2.1.0+${SRCPV}"
> > > > ...
> > > 
> > > This was already wrong before but now is an opportunity to fix:
> > > Since this is exactly the release, it should be
> > >   PV = "2.1.0"
> > 
> > So, which is it? Do you want it to be exactly the release, or do you
> > want to start backporting fixes from after the release? It doesn't
> > seem to be a critical issue to warrant backporting, in my opinion.
> 
> openssl is not a light dependency and is one I'd prefer not to be
> adding unless we really need it. Things like this may look/sound
> trivial but they inflate build times, image sizes and build complexity.
> 
> I'd probably prefer to have the 2.1.0 with a backported patch in this
> case if you're after an opinion :)

Luckily, the fix for this was right in the next commit after the release, so I 
opted to bump SRCREV by one, instead of carrying a local patch. Just sent v2.