[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2013 10:02:29 +0200
From: Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl>
To: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
Cc: acme@...stprotocols.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/23] perf: make cfi unwind support based on
CONFIG_LIBUNWIND
On Tue, 2013-04-02 at 09:20 -0600, David Ahern wrote:
> traditionally, perf has not required a kernel config to build it. The
> above grabs some symbols for a standalone perf config. I guess that's a
> question to be answered - should the kernel's config files should be
> used for perf (or a tools target in general).
If you decide to only use the kernel kconfig tools but not the current
tree of Kconfig files I suggest to separate things clearly. So in that
case using Pconfig as a filename (as we discussed for PATCH 01/23)
actually seems to be a good idea. Likewise, in that case you might want
to prefix your macros with, say, PCONFIG_ instead of CONFIG_. (I think
the kconfig tools support that, but I haven't checked.)
> Also, perf can be built outside of the kernel tree. Tying the build to
> the kernel config files would have an affect on that option.
>
> Something to look at for the next version.
Paul Bolle
--
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