linux-kernel - Re: [perf-tools] Build-error in tools/perf/util/annotate.c with LLVM-14

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]

Message-ID: <20220703165448.7d2akxawzdvqigat@awork3.anarazel.de>
Date:   Sun, 3 Jul 2022 09:54:48 -0700
From:   Andres Freund <andres@...razel.de>
To:     Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <arnaldo.melo@...il.com>
Cc:     sedat.dilek@...il.com, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com, jolsa@...nel.org,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        Quentin Monnet <quentin@...valent.com>,
        linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        bpf@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [perf-tools] Build-error in tools/perf/util/annotate.c with
 LLVM-14

Hi,

On 2022-07-03 10:54:45 -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> That series should be split a bit further, so that the
> new features test is in a separate patch, i.e. I don't process bpftool patches, but can process the feature test and the tools/perf part.

Ok, will split it further. Should I do

1) feature test
2) introduce compat header header
3) use feature test, use header in perf/
4) use feature test, use header in bpf/

Or should 3, 4 be split to separately introduce the feature test and use of
the compat header?

Greetings,

Andres Freund