[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1340378342.1478.24.camel@leonhard>
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 00:19:02 +0900
From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...il.com>
To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>, David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung.kim@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/8] perf symbols: Do not use ELF's symbol binding
constants
2012-06-22 (금), 09:43 -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo:
> Em Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 02:37:39PM +0900, Namhyung Kim escreveu:
> > From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung.kim@....com>
> >
> > There's no need to use the ELF's internal value directly.
> > Define and use our own - it's required to eliminated the
> > dependency of libelf.
>
> Why don't you set STB_GLOBAL, etc to the expected values when libelf is
> not present? That way no changes need to be made to symbol.c
>
> Ditto for GELF_ST_BIND.
>
> I.e. keep the subset of libelf.h that we use, providing those
> definitions on the poor man's libelf.h we should use when the "real
> thing" is not available.
>
I just tried to be independent to (lib)elf as much as possible. And I
thought that using same macro name might cause a bit of confusion - at
least for me - so I wanted to use more descriptive and generic name.
But it's not a big deal. If you insist on using the same name is the
better way, I can change it.
--
Regards,
Namhyung Kim
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists