From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix, from userid 118) id B5CA0E009A1; Mon, 15 Jun 2015 12:33:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on yocto-www.yoctoproject.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-HAM-Report: * -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] Received: from mail.chez-thomas.org (mail.mlbassoc.com [65.100.170.105]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FFBAE00960 for ; Mon, 15 Jun 2015 12:33:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail.chez-thomas.org (Postfix, from userid 1998) id 44EAFF811E2; Mon, 15 Jun 2015 13:33:01 -0600 (MDT) Received: from [192.168.1.114] (zeus [192.168.1.114]) by mail.chez-thomas.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0D7AF811D9; Mon, 15 Jun 2015 13:33:00 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <557F287D.6010406@mlbassoc.com> Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 13:33:17 -0600 From: Gary Thomas User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Martin Jansa References: <557ED498.50406@mlbassoc.com> <20150615142110.GC2398@jama> <557F0E5B.90408@mlbassoc.com> <20150615174613.GD2398@jama> In-Reply-To: <20150615174613.GD2398@jama> Cc: Yocto Project Subject: Re: sstate black hole? X-BeenThere: yocto@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of all things Yocto Project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 19:33:06 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 2015-06-15 11:46, Martin Jansa wrote: > On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 11:41:47AM -0600, Gary Thomas wrote: >> On 2015-06-15 08:21, Martin Jansa wrote: >>> On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 07:35:20AM -0600, Gary Thomas wrote: >>>> I'm working with i.MX6 targets (meta-fsl-arm*). For these >>>> targets, some packages are "special" in that they use i.MX6 >>>> specific graphics support. This ends up with an additional >>>> layer of stratification, so my tmp/work tree has: >>>> all-amltd-linux >>>> cortexa9hf-vfp-neon-amltd-linux-gnueabi >>>> cortexa9hf-vfp-neon-mx6qdl-amltd-linux-gnueabi >>>> teton_p0382-amltd-linux-gnueabi >>>> x86_64-amltd-linux-gnueabi >>>> x86_64-linux >>>> >>>> The packages that are built in tmp/work/cortex* are architecture >>>> specific, not target specific, hence my question: >>>> >>>> If I build for two i.MX6 targets, identical in every way >>>> except for the ${MACHINE} name, if I use sstate to share >>>> the builds from target A when building for target B, why >>>> are the packages built in cortexa9hf-vfp-neon-mx6qdl-amltd-linux-gnueabi >>>> not shared by sstate? I can see that they are present in >>>> the sstate cache, but they are always rebuilt for target B. >>>> I consider this incorrect behaviour as these are the same >>>> architecture and so they should be sharable via sstate. >>>> >>>> Am I missing something here? How can I determine why the >>>> package from target A (sstate cache) is not usable by target B? >>> >>> Use openembedded-core/scripts/sstate-diff-machines.sh to check if the >>> signatures of the recipes you expect to be re-used are the same. >>> >> >> How can I use this if the two targets have their own tmp/ tree? > > call it twice (once in each tmp tree) and compare resulting list.M files > Sadly, that script seems to destroy all of the .sigdata files which are needed to actually track down the culprit(s). -- ------------------------------------------------------------ Gary Thomas | Consulting for the MLB Associates | Embedded world ------------------------------------------------------------