On 05/26/2011 11:22 AM, Saul Wold wrote: > On 05/26/2011 11:04 AM, Joshua Lock wrote: >> On Mon, 2011-05-23 at 23:38 -0700, Saul Wold wrote: >>> [YOCTO #886] >>> >>> This address 2 needs after the IMAGE_ROOTFS_SIZE is cleaned up, by >>> removing some of the _ext2/3 overrides it allows for a cleaner override >>> using IMAGE_ROOTFS_SIZE to create a large rootfs, or by setting the >>> IMAGE_ROOTFS_EXTRA_SPACE, will allow for extra space allocated in Kilobytes >>> above the base size (determined by du of the rootfs * IMAGE_OVERHEAD_FACTOR, >>> default of 1.3). >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Saul Wold<[email protected]> >>> --- >>> meta/classes/image_types.bbclass | 2 +- >>> meta/conf/bitbake.conf | 4 ++++ >>> 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/meta/classes/image_types.bbclass >>> b/meta/classes/image_types.bbclass >>> index 69f859e..601a5fb 100644 >>> --- a/meta/classes/image_types.bbclass >>> +++ b/meta/classes/image_types.bbclass >>> @@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ def get_imagecmds(d): >>> >>> runimagecmd () { >>> # Image generation code for image type ${type} >>> - ROOTFS_SIZE=`du -ks ${IMAGE_ROOTFS}|awk '{size = $1 * >>> ${IMAGE_OVERHEAD_FACTOR}; print (size> ${IMAGE_ROOTFS_SIZE} ? size : >>> ${IMAGE_ROOTFS_SIZE}) }'` >>> + ROOTFS_SIZE=`du -ks ${IMAGE_ROOTFS}|awk '{size = $1 * >>> ${IMAGE_OVERHEAD_FACTOR} + ${IMAGE_ROOTFS_EXTRA_SPACE}; print (size> >>> ${IMAGE_ROOTFS_SIZE} ? size : ${IMAGE_ROOTFS_SIZE}) }'` >>> ${cmd} >>> cd ${DEPLOY_DIR_IMAGE}/ >>> rm -f ${DEPLOY_DIR_IMAGE}/${IMAGE_LINK_NAME}.${type} >>> diff --git a/meta/conf/bitbake.conf b/meta/conf/bitbake.conf >>> index a0af672..fa3618c 100644 >>> --- a/meta/conf/bitbake.conf >>> +++ b/meta/conf/bitbake.conf >>> @@ -350,6 +350,10 @@ IMAGE_LINK_NAME = "${IMAGE_BASENAME}-${MACHINE}" >>> # This option allows for a precentage overage of the actaul image size >>> rather than a
contextual fix while you're at it: s/precentage/percentage/ s/actaul/actual/ >>> # fixed extra space >>> IMAGE_OVERHEAD_FACTOR ?= 1.3 >>> +# This option allow for adding addition space in K above and beyond what >>> the >>> +# IMAGE_OVERHEAD_FACTOR might add. To set a fixed size then overrideing >>> IMAGE_ROOTFS_SIZE >>> +# with the max size one wants should do the trick >>> +IMAGE_OVERHEAD_EXTRA_SPACE = "0" >> >> This appears to be a different variable to the IMAGE_ROOTFS_EXTRA_SPACE >> used in the command above? Also, you've done a hard assignment here. >> Shouldn't it be a soft (?=) assignment? >> > Yes, I fixed the OVERHEAD vs ROOTFS already, noticed that during post > RFC testing. I did not see the soft (?=) problem, but agree it needs to > be fixed. > Hrm, I didn't realize there were two variables. If IMAGE_ROOTFS_EXTRA_SPACE is used to ensure the user has some space for their data, what then is the idea driving IMAGE_OVERHEAD_FACTOR? -- Darren Hart Intel Open Source Technology Center Yocto Project - Linux Kernel _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
