linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/15] perf build: Disable default check for libbabeltrace

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 15 Mar 2015 18:32:27 +0100
From:	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
To:	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>
Cc:	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Corey Ashford <cjashfor@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	David Ahern <david.ahern@...cle.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/15] perf build: Disable default check for libbabeltrace

On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 05:19:35PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:

SNIP

> > but we need to add support for that first
> 
> Thanks for explaining, that covers one of my peeves, i.e. the cset
> comment wasn't clear, now it is a bit better, thanks!
> 
> The other is for someone not interested in how the feature detection
> works but then sees a warning about a feature not being available but
> that feature doesn't appear on the followup summary of features that are
> ON or OFF the build...
> 
> So I think that when we think that some feature is experimental, for any
> reason, for instance, because it is based on some feature that is not on
> a released version of the library one needs to link against, to only
> bother with trying to check if it is available and link against it if so
> if it is _explicitely_ asked for.

yep, but that'd be new feature, currently we check for everything
and are able only to disable features via NO_* make variables

> I.e. documentation should state that perf can have support for that
> feature, but only if the user does:
> 
> 1. installs the precisely described version that has what is needed.
> 
> 2. Explicitely asks, in the make command line, for that feature.
> 
> In the case at hand that would not even be a library release, but a
> specific git commit on babeltrace's repo.
> 
> That would be a speedup! ;-)
> 
> - Arnaldo
> 
> P.S. After all, we're not short on features, look at the ldd output...
> Ok, I need to keep on merging the .config stuff, but even then, I guess
> we need to have more of a dlopen approach to all those features, so that
> one can install a package without dragging hell and its kitchen sink.

yea, moving slowly towards to that step by step ;-)

i rebased perf/build branch to your latest perf/core

jirka
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/