[Linaro-validation] Toolchain builds in LAVA

Michael Hope michael.hope at linaro.org
Wed Mar 28 20:14:04 UTC 2012

On 29 March 2012 04:20, Paul Larson <paul.larson at linaro.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 10:03 AM, Andrew Stubbs <andrew.stubbs at linaro.org>
> wrote:
>> On 28/03/12 03:26, Michael Hope wrote:
>>> Hi there.  The GCC build time is approaching 24 hours and our five
>>> Panda boards can't keep up.  Sounds like a good time to LAVAise the
>>> toolchain build process a bit more...
>> As you know, I've been doing some experiments with this over the last few
>> months. I was blocked by a LAVA bug for a while, but that's been fixed now.
>> Here's the latest test run (done by Le Chi Thu):
>> http://validation.linaro.org/lava-server/dashboard/permalink/bundle/d73af579ed77957615bd3db2d9055d82bb14299e/
>> The test fails due to a GCC build failure:
>> //usr/include/linux/errno.h:4:23: fatal error: asm/errno.h: No such file
>> or directory
>> This surprised me, because I thought it was using the same rootfs you had
>> on the ursa boards, but I've not had time to do anything about it yet.
> Looks like something that can likely be resolved by adding a dependency for
> the test.  However, if you need, or if it would be more convenient to have a
> custom rootfs for this, that's certainly an option.  Nothing says we
> necessarily have to run these tests on nano, developer, etc... but if it's
> interesting to make it possible for later running this as part of a platform
> release test, it might be better to make them generic so that they don't
> depend on a custom rootfs.

There's a switch coming up due to Precise and hard float and I'll
normalise against the Linaro LEB and hwpacks then.  developer is a
good start but it'll need extra packages added.  I'll script those up
and spin a new image with them pre-installed rather than add speed and
reliability issue of doing it at boot time.

-- Michael

More information about the linaro-dev mailing list