Re: [PATCH 2/2] integrate ubifs image type

[Claudius Heine <claudius.heine.ext@siemens.com>]

On 29/01/2019 09.16, [ext] Claudius Heine wrote:
>>>>> +do_ubifs_image[stamp-extra-info] = "${DISTRO}-${MACHINE}"
>>>>> +
>>>>> +# Generate ubifs filesystem image
>>>>> +do_ubifs_image() {
>>>>> +    rm -f ${DEPLOY_DIR_IMAGE}/${UBIFS_IMAGE_FILE}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +    buildchroot_do_mounts
>>>>> +
>>>>> +    sudo flock ${MOUNT_LOCKFILE} -c ' \
>>>>> +        mkdir -p ${BUILDROOT_DEPLOY} ${BUILDROOT_ROOTFS}
>>>>> +        mount --bind ${DEPLOY_DIR_IMAGE} ${BUILDROOT_DEPLOY}
>>>>> +        mount --bind ${IMAGE_ROOTFS} ${BUILDROOT_ROOTFS}
>>>>> +    '
>>>>
>>>> I think this mounting should also be required by a proper ext4
>>>> class. On the other hand the wic one moves the image into the final
>>>> deploy folder.
>>>> Not sure what is best but maybe a good idea to go for "always move"
>>>> or "always mount".
>>>
>>> Hmm.. In OE this task would not to touch the deploy directory and
>>> *copy* all artifacts in a dedicated task AFAIK. But OE has a
>>> completely different image creation pipeline and infrastructure than
>>> isar, so who knows how things should be done here.
>>
>> We currently generate and deploy in one task. The fun thing is that we
>> need multiple commands and can probably end up in weird states if we
>> get interrupted or fail.
>>
>> Changing that general pattern is a discussion of its own, since it
>> would change the API.
>>
>> Staying in the current API i think the mount and generate directly into
>> deploy ... no more chmod/chown mv ... whatever. Would be the cleanest
>> way. We already have a reliable umount mechanism to clean up if things
>> go wrong.
>>
>> If you agree: Please include that deploydir/rootfs mount into the common
>> mounts and update your imager. I will do the same for wic and maybe
>> ext4.
> 
> Ok. Will do that.

Hmmm... You mean mounts that are done by `buildchroot_do_mounts`? 
Extending that function would cause deploydir and rootfs to be mounted 
for every recipe. `rootfs` doesn't make sense for normal recipes and 
mounting `deploydir` into every recipes workspace sound bad as well...

Maybe we would need a image specific mount function and then switch 
every image type to this. But I guess that would be a feature on its own.

Claudius

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,      Managing Director: Wolfgang Denk
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-54 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: ch@denx.de