RE: [PATCH v2] staging: mkspec: added aarch64 ifarch case.

[James Tau]

Hi Will,

This patch (http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20161122213434.14788-1-mmarek@xxxxxxxx) looks better.  It has what Linus calls "good taste". ;-)  I didn't see it in mmarek's kbuild branches (for-next,rc-fixes), however.  Still making its way there?

But it doesn't quite fix the native 'make rpm' build completely.  While it gets beyond the point at which 'make rpm' fails without my patch, it exposes another issue for which I am debugging right now:

  ld -EL -r  -T ./scripts/module-common.lds --build-id  -o net/unix/unix.ko net/unix/unix.o net/unix/unix.mod.o ;  true
make -f ./scripts/Makefile.fwinst obj=firmware __fw_modbuild
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.YcfiLf (%build)
    Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.YcfiLf (%build)

RPM build errors:
make[1]: *** [rpm] Error 1
make: *** [rpm] Error 2
  
If I succeed in root-causing the problem, I'll submit a patch for that (if another doesn't beat me to it).  And assuming that patch is accepted for having Linusian "good taste", then it, and http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20161122213434.14788-1-mmarek@xxxxxxxx, will make my current submitted patch extraneous.

Thanks,
James

-----Original Message-----
From: Will Deacon [mailto:will.deacon@xxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 1, 2017 11:06 PM
To: James Tau <jtau@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kbuild@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; mmarek@xxxxxxxx; catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx; Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] staging: mkspec: added aarch64 ifarch case.

On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 09:24:14AM -0800, James Tau wrote:
> Patch attempting to fix native 'make rpm' build on ARM64 machines by 
> adding an "ifarch aarch64" case.  Without it, build fails because the 
> 'cp ...' in the default case can't find the built image.
> 
> Signed-off-by: James Tau <jtau@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  scripts/package/mkspec | 4 ++++
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)

Is this the same issue that was fixed by:

http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20161122213434.14788-1-mmarek@xxxxxxxx

?

I was assuming that Michael was going to queue those, but I could be wrong.

Will