[edk2-devel] Edk2 BaseTools Patches.

Thu May 30 18:10:08 UTC 2019

> On May 30, 2019, at 9:37 AM, Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm at linaro.org> wrote:
> 
> Thanks Bob, Christian,
> 
> On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 03:06:48PM +0000, Feng, Bob C wrote:
>> Thanks Christian. I add some short description for the patches.
>> 
>> These 5 patches are all for binary cache feature.
>> 
>> [Patch V4 2/2] BaseTools: Refactor hash tracking after checking for Sources section
>> [Patch V4 1/2] BaseTools: Add a checking for Sources section in INF file
>> 
>> The above 2 patches is to fix the issue that
>> The  build tool uses the files list under [sources] section of INF
>> file as a input to calculate a module's hash value. But in some INF
>> files, [sources] does not list all the "source" files, missing some
>> .h files. Path 2/2 use another method to get all source files for a
>> module and patch 1/2 do a check whether [sources] list all the
>> "source" files.
> 
> I'll be honest - because of the wild variance in whether .h files are
> listed in the [sources] section of .inf files, I have always been
> unsure as to whether they were just being ignored (and extracted on
> the side via mkdep or similar).
> 

Leif,

I'm confused too as you can only really know the set of include files by doing the mkdep?

I don't see the value of hashing the local include files as any include file change in the mkdep path requires the module to be recompiled. It seems to me having one scheme for hashing and anther four building is going to cause a lot of very subtle errors that are really hard to debug. When you have these kind of errors in your build system you teach people they always need to make clean, so they bypass the hashing and dependency checks. 

Seems like we may be fighting the makefiles again, but from a 10,000 point of view it seems like the dependency algorithm and the hash need to be tied together. Seems like the makefile already knows if it needs to build it, but I'm not sure if the makefile can run an action if it does not need to build something? 

Thanks,

Andrew Fish

> If the intent is to speed up build time, would it not be better to
> warn the user - so they notice the problem and fix their modules,
> rather than adding extra processing time on having the tools work with
> broken .inf files?
> 
> This does not look like material for edk2-stable201905 to me.
> 
>> [PATCH v3 1/1] BaseTools:Extend the binary cache to support library cache
>> This patch is to resolve the problem that
>> Build tool dose not cache the library binaries now. Whiteout this
>> patch, there is 25% extra time cost to rebuild the all module
>> dependency libraries if cache miss happen.
> 
> 25% is a big number, so I won't argue against this. But I also won't
> argue for it - the BZ was raised very late in the cycle.
> 
>> [PATCH] BaseTools:Update binary cache restore time to current time
>> This patch is to make the restored binary file have the current time
>> stamp not the binary file original time stamp.
> 
> I can see how the current behaviour could cause problems with some
> CI/build systems. If it is properly reviewed and tested, I am OK with
> this one going in for edk2-stable201903.
> 
>> [PATCH V5] BaseTools:Make BaseTools support new rules to generate RAW FFS FILE
>> This patch is to support the raw ffs file rule. Now build tool does
>> not correctly handle this case:
>> 
>> [Rule.Common.USER_DEFINED.MicroCode]
>>  FILE RAW = $(NAMED_GUID) {
>>                 $(INF_OUTPUT)/$(MODULE_NAME).bin
>>  }
> 
> This looks like a new feature - not something that should bypass the
> freeze period for edk2-stable201905.
> Can you explain why this is needed in the stable tag as opposed to
> being available from master the day after the tag is made?
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Leif
> 
>> 
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Bob
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Rodriguez, Christian 
>> Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2019 10:26 PM
>> To: Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm at linaro.org>; Feng, Bob C <bob.c.feng at intel.com>
>> Cc: Andrew Fish <afish at apple.com>; Laszlo Ersek <lersek at redhat.com>; Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kinney at intel.com>; devel at edk2.groups.io; Gao, Liming <liming.gao at intel.com>; Shi, Steven <steven.shi at intel.com>; Fan, ZhijuX <zhijux.fan at intel.com>
>> Subject: RE: Edk2 BaseTools Patches.
>> 
>> Hey Leif,
>> 
>> I thought I'd help Bob and gather those BZs for each thread:
>> 
>> [Patch V4 1/2] BaseTools: Add a checking for Sources section in INF file [Patch V4 2/2] BaseTools: Refactor hash tracking after checking for Sources section
>> BZ: https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1804
>> 
>> [PATCH v3 1/1] BaseTools:Extend the binary cache to support library cache
>> BZ: https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1797
>> 
>> [PATCH V5] BaseTools:Make BaseTools support new rules to generate RAW FFS FILE
>> BZ: https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1765
>> 
>> [PATCH] BaseTools:Update binary cache restore time to current time
>> BZ: https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1742
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Christian
>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Leif Lindholm [mailto:leif.lindholm at linaro.org]
>>> Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2019 2:28 AM
>>> To: Feng, Bob C <bob.c.feng at intel.com>
>>> Cc: Andrew Fish <afish at apple.com>; Laszlo Ersek <lersek at redhat.com>; 
>>> Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kinney at intel.com>; devel at edk2.groups.io; 
>>> Gao, Liming <liming.gao at intel.com>; Shi, Steven <steven.shi at intel.com>; 
>>> Rodriguez, Christian <christian.rodriguez at intel.com>; Fan, ZhijuX 
>>> <zhijux.fan at intel.com>
>>> Subject: Re: Edk2 BaseTools Patches.
>>> 
>>> Hi Bob,
>>> 
>>> On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 06:39:59AM +0000, Feng, Bob C wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> Currently, we have 5 Basetools patches which are ready to push. Since 
>>>> we are in the soft-freeze phase, I'd like to ask for your opinions if 
>>>> those patches can be pushed to edk2 master.
>>> 
>>> To save me the time of reading through all the threads and getting to 
>>> grips with all the code, could you summarise the problem these solve 
>>> and the impact of not including these?
>>> 
>>> Is there a BZ?
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> 
>>> Leif
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> These 5 patches are to fix the issues for the build cache feature.
>>>> 
>>>> [Patch V4 2/2] BaseTools: Refactor hash tracking after checking for 
>>>> Sources section
>>>> https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/topic/31835556#41642
>>>> 
>>>> [Patch V4 1/2] BaseTools: Add a checking for Sources section in INF 
>>>> file
>>>> https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/topic/31835555#41641
>>>> 
>>>> [PATCH v3 1/1] BaseTools:Extend the binary cache to support library 
>>>> cache
>>>> https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/topic/31843505#41655
>>>> 
>>>> [PATCH V5] BaseTools:Make BaseTools support new rules to generate RAW 
>>>> FFS FILE
>>>> https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/topic/31830807#41571
>>>> 
>>>> [PATCH] BaseTools:Update binary cache restore time to current time
>>>> https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/topic/31819590#41468
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Bob
> 
> 

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#41686): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/41686
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/31866190/1813853
Group Owner: devel+owner at edk2.groups.io
Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub  [edk2-devel-archive at redhat.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/edk2-devel-archive/attachments/20190530/4a8fc1f8/attachment.htm>