From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-GM-THRID: 6982576501791129600 X-Received: by 2002:ac2:550e:: with SMTP id j14mr24342048lfk.620.1625765834481; Thu, 08 Jul 2021 10:37:14 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: isar-users@googlegroups.com Received: by 2002:a2e:9584:: with SMTP id w4ls661184ljh.1.gmail; Thu, 08 Jul 2021 10:37:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwqG08mIw69s8PPmI8Idhe+5Se0GrdnuNB7WKi1tmQlij92gDVCPEJqmldKbLlLCS5zrJds X-Received: by 2002:a05:651c:211a:: with SMTP id a26mr13044913ljq.91.1625765833361; Thu, 08 Jul 2021 10:37:13 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1625765833; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=Mnv1iCZM22Q0kp8MoTXrZQvIYFLpEuNFy0mUnLKGV6qxI/m27FFzX7lJY40fQ92tQY qcARA9G+2NY7jcxn4J6BdxW4lcHKsUztx+UKamCAod6WD2+WehjX+YCoSMQleoCUGNf5 0VuYgzLUgiG9ATWbWKozs9MECTy6eG8vm7KQGdNO2Tia0/odwr4CLdl1LdkN1hpYb6Db uHgsilQ+UwKIDOJ0D2eWCcR6qgTy2yKb/c2eIjtFm5CdVHMJ3e2WBLmdD8c4V+lLqs4z zk4iOAZ206gwYnnSoOWop5NfjEfTL1towQp2u7/bAUd65DVHbxNnTY1nFrkZUmJ/eqDD 43RA== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-language:in-reply-to:mime-version :user-agent:date:message-id:from:references:to:subject; bh=k4rDYQZytoMEX2WcriIOHdOWjfv+7SLmEK3sXRB8W9k=; b=YxrTQErpRUkhAFLLH5tq70rQNgdiWc7rvJZbwapMdbRz28iy6FIU4lLzQsVcN+DCuy KSLPlugwmAqg8VWaBILar/r/ilsYxPU7BbeQ5OtNZviLLrVfr/FyN3IUnqx/Zw12+0oi PHcxl2lbMLS9Iy272xFaEHCiO53Dgs2+QDBCNw3yAH3625grFnWpN4ruSvf7H74/G3UW nGSk2e0dFA5GanUyZD2R2GdJ2aqi8xwoat3HozXwZlWevkQrWgy2HA7jrwGETfZKfhft YngFjkP5fWaN0aUthA6XVrvfvRFinetjQ10OfsNAeJRLVIE/Yn3G7A6d8AwgepghLQvk Ltrw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jan.kiszka@siemens.com designates 194.138.37.39 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=jan.kiszka@siemens.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=siemens.com Return-Path: Received: from lizzard.sbs.de (lizzard.sbs.de. [194.138.37.39]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id e14si83016ljn.2.2021.07.08.10.37.13 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 08 Jul 2021 10:37:13 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jan.kiszka@siemens.com designates 194.138.37.39 as permitted sender) client-ip=194.138.37.39; Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jan.kiszka@siemens.com designates 194.138.37.39 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=jan.kiszka@siemens.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=siemens.com Received: from mail2.sbs.de (mail2.sbs.de [192.129.41.66]) by lizzard.sbs.de (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 168HbCU6020512 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 8 Jul 2021 19:37:12 +0200 Received: from [167.87.42.31] ([167.87.42.31]) by mail2.sbs.de (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 168HbCN7019088; Thu, 8 Jul 2021 19:37:12 +0200 Subject: Re: [PATCH] rootfs: Use separate mounts lock file To: Anton Mikanovich , isar-users@googlegroups.com References: <20210708152251.220337-1-amikan@ilbers.de> From: Jan Kiszka Message-ID: Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2021 19:37:11 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20210708152251.220337-1-amikan@ilbers.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TUID: 3wbqpHyrsrSq On 08.07.21 17:22, Anton Mikanovich wrote: > MOUNTS_LOCKFILE value inside rootfs.bbclass is overwritten by later > inherited buildchroot.bbclass. We need to use other value name. > > Signed-off-by: Anton Mikanovich > --- > meta/classes/rootfs.bbclass | 6 +++--- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/meta/classes/rootfs.bbclass b/meta/classes/rootfs.bbclass > index 50d6408..6ce2cf9 100644 > --- a/meta/classes/rootfs.bbclass > +++ b/meta/classes/rootfs.bbclass > @@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ export LANG = "C" > export LANGUAGE = "C" > export LC_ALL = "C" > > -MOUNT_LOCKFILE = "${ROOTFSDIR}.lock" > +IMAGE_MOUNT_LOCKFILE = "${ROOTFSDIR}.lock" > > rootfs_do_mounts[weight] = "3" > rootfs_do_mounts() { > @@ -70,7 +70,7 @@ rootfs_do_mounts() { > mount --bind '${REPO_BASE_DIR}' '${ROOTFSDIR}/base-apt' > fi > > - ) 9>'${MOUNT_LOCKFILE}' > + ) 9>'${IMAGE_MOUNT_LOCKFILE}' > EOSUDO > } > > @@ -103,7 +103,7 @@ rootfs_undo_mounts() { > umount -R ${ROOTFSDIR}/proc > mountpoint -q '${ROOTFSDIR}/dev' && \ > umount -R ${ROOTFSDIR}/dev > - ) 9>'${MOUNT_LOCKFILE}' > + ) 9>'${IMAGE_MOUNT_LOCKFILE}' > EOSUDO > } > > Definitely a good catch, but I'm still wrapping my head around it. We either have really separated rootfs'es here so that separated lock files are fine, or we rather want rootfs_do_mounts to be locked against buildchroot_do_mounts as well. At least conceptually, even if they well never run in parallel in practice. In that case, MOUNT_LOCKFILE in rootfs.bbclass should be made a weak assignment, to clarify that buildchroot.bbclass will win, irrespective of any ordering. Jan -- Siemens AG, T RDA IOT Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux