linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 01/10] perf tools: Integrating the CoreSight decoding library

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:   Thu, 18 Jan 2018 15:27:43 +0100
From:   Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
To:     Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
Cc:     Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        namhyung@...nel.org, Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
        Mike Leach <mike.leach@....com>, suzuki.poulosi@....com,
        Kim Phillips <kim.phillips@....com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/10] perf tools: Integrating the CoreSight decoding
 library

On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 11:14:23AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 02:59:48PM +0100, Jiri Olsa escreveu:
> > On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 10:41:39AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > > 	Shouldn't libopencsd be treated like libbabeltrace was before
> > > the required version was widely available in distros?
> 
> > > 	I.e. these csets should have the rationale for that:
> 
> > > Enabling it once it became widely available:
> 
> > >    24787afbcd01 ("perf tools: Enable LIBBABELTRACE by default")
> 
> > > Disabling it because we would need to get things from tarballs/git
> > > repos, build it in our machines, as requested by Ingo:
> 
> > >   6ab2b762befd ("perf build: Disable libbabeltrace check by default")
> > 
> > I think at that time we did not have a way to hide the check,
> > now we have FEATURE_DISPLAY seprated so we can still check
> > for it, but users won't be bothered with [ FAIL ] output
> 
> Ok, users won't be bothered with the fail output, but we tried hard to
> get the build fast by having it only test for things that are widely
> available, right? I.e. if we know something is not widely available then
> we better not try to build with it and get faster builds, wasn't that
> part of the rationale in the babeltrace case?
> 
> If one has to build from sources some library, then its not a problem to
> have in the make command line a LIBOPENCSD=1 switch?

right, we can do it like that

jirka