[yocto] What's this

[Mike Looijmans]

On 08-06-16 00:20, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-06-08 at 09:24 +1200, Paul Eggleton wrote:
>> On Tue, 07 Jun 2016 17:20:12 Burton, Ross wrote:
>>> On 7 June 2016 at 17:02, Burton, Ross <ross.burton at intel.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> It means the hash calculated my the bitbake master was different
>>>> to the
>>>> hash calculated when the worker started up.  This usually means
>>>> that
>>>> you're
>>>> using something like ${TIME} in the recipe but not marking it
>>>> appropriatly
>>>> so the cache ignores it.  Do you have a base-files bbappend that
>>>> writes a
>>>> timestamp?
>>>
>>> The always wise Joshua reminds me that if your DISTRO_VERSION
>>> contains
>>> ${DATETIME} then this happens.  If you're doing this then you'll
>>> want to
>>> set [vardepsexclude] on DISTRO_VERSION to stop the DATETIME from
>>> getting
>>> into the cache (or not put the current date/time into the distro
>>> version).
>>
>> I think we need to handle this situation better - if it's really
>> worth
>> producing an error about then it's worth producing an error message
>> that
>> people can actually understand, particularly as it's recently added
>> validation.
>
> It was silently running into problems due to this all along but not
> reporting it. Its now reporting it which is better than silently things
> behaving strangely.
>
> Its very hard for bitbake to know why the hashes differ, it only knows
> the values afterwards and hence that they've changed, the information
> about how that hash was constructed is not present in any of bitbake's
> caches. That implies to have better messages we need to write out more
> data.
>
> I did add a patch to make bitbake write out data to allow
> reconstruction of basehash (which is part of taskhash). Sadly the
> parsing performance was diabolical (10 times slower). I think that
> could perhaps be improved if the files don't require an atomic move
> during creation but I haven't had time to look further at it.
>
> So whilst I do agree, what is the price people are willing to pay to
> have those better messages?

I have a build machine that every so often runs into "basehash mismatch" 
problems (but never when you want it to, such as now), so getting some 
information on what might cause it would be "priceless". I'd happily let the 
machine run for 10 days straight if at the end I get a message that I can work 
with.

Which implies that any performance hit is acceptable, if there's a switch to 
enable and disable that extra diagnostic. Oh dear, just what we need, yet 
another switch...

M.



Kind regards,

Mike Looijmans
System Expert

TOPIC Embedded Products
Eindhovenseweg 32-C, NL-5683 KH Best
Postbus 440, NL-5680 AK Best
Telefoon: +31 (0) 499 33 69 79
E-mail: mike.looijmans at topicproducts.com
Website: www.topicproducts.com

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail