Message-ID: <20240626-tangible-steady-elephant-dbae4f@lindesnes>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 21:49:23 +0200
From: Nicolas Schier <nicolas@...sle.eu>
To: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>
Cc: Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>, linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>,
	Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Makefile: add comment to discourage tools/* addition for
 kernel builds

On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 04:02:46AM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 6:52 AM Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 03:21:42PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> > > Kbuild provides scripts/Makefile.host to build host programs used for
> > > building the kernel. Unfortunately, there are two exceptions that opt
> > > out of Kbuild. The build system under tools/ is a cheesy replica, and
> > > is always a disaster. I was recently poked about a problem in the tools
> > > build issue, which I do not maintain (and nobody maintains). [1]
> >
> > (Side note: I hope I haven't placed undue burden on you; I understood
> > you don't maintain tools/ and that it didn't use Kbuild. I only "poked"
> > you because the original bug report I was replying to had you and
> > linux-kbuild on CC already. And I appreciate your engagement, even if
> > the bugs are due to intentional forking.)
> 
> 
> I did not mean to express my complaint particularly with the previous thread.
> 
> It is not the first time that the tools/ build issue arose.
> 
> 
> I will drop the references to the threads.
> 
> 
> 
> > But anyway, I agree that clearer documentation and recommendations could
> > be helpful here. To that end, some dumb questions below, as I'm not sure
> > if this fully serves its purpose as-is:
> >
> > > Without a comment, somebody might believe this is the right location
> > > because that is where objtool lives, even when a more robust Kbuild
> > > syntax satisfies their needs. [2]
> > >
> > > [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kbuild/ZnIYWBgrJ-IJtqK8@google.com/T/#m8ece130dd0e23c6f2395ed89070161948dee8457
> > > [2]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240618200501.GA1611012@google.com/
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>
> > > ---
> > >
> > >  Makefile | 5 +++++
> > >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
> > > index 471f2df86422..ba070596ad4e 100644
> > > --- a/Makefile
> > > +++ b/Makefile
> > > @@ -1331,6 +1331,11 @@ prepare: tools/bpf/resolve_btfids
> > >  endif
> > >  endif
> > >
> > > +# README
> > > +# The tools build system is not a part of Kbuild. Before adding yet another
> > > +# tools/* here, please consider if the standard "hostprogs" syntax satisfies
> > > +# your needs.
> > > +
> >
> > Some clarifying questions / statements-as-questions:
> >
> > * nothing in tools/ uses Kbuild, right? (even stuff that uses KBUILD_*
> >   names is just an imitative port, right?)
> 
> 
> Correct.
> 
> You can build a tool from multiple directory locations.
> 
> For example, you can compile the 'perf' in multiple locations.
> 
> 
> [1] From the top of the kernel tree
> 
>    $ make tools/perf
> 
> 
> [2] From the tools/ directory
> 
>    $ cd tools
>    $ make perf
> 
> 
> [3] From the tools/perf/ directory
> 
>    $ cd tools/perf
>    $ make
> 
> 
> 
> When you do [2] or [3], the top-level Makefile is not parsed.
> 
> If necessary, the tools build system copies code from Kbuild.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > * not everything in tools/ is actually promoted to a high-level target,
> >   that affects this top-level Makefile. Are you only concerned about
> >   stuff that pretends to be integrated in the top-level kernel Makefile?
> >   (If not, then it seems like placing the README comments only in this
> >   Makefile is a poor choice.)
> 
> 
> The tool build is integrated as a pattern rule in the top Makefile.
> (tools/%)
> 
> 
> So, you can build other tools from the top Makefile.
> 
> 
> See commit ea01fa9f63aef, which did not get Ack from any Kbuild
> maintainer, and caused subsequent troubles, and the benefit
> of which I still do not understand.
> 
> 
> Supporting "make tools/perf" in addition to "make -C tools perf"
> only saved a few characters to type.
> 
> 
> So, the problem remains, unless I revert ea01fa9f63aef.
> 
> I decided to not care about it too much, as long as
> such tools are not used during the kernel build.
> 
> I am really worried about objtool and resolve_btfids,
> as these two are used for building the kernel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > * is the "standard hostprogs" recommendation a general recommendation,
> >   for all sorts of kept-in-the-kernel-tree host tools? Is the
> >   recommendation to "use Kbuild" or to "avoid putting your tool in
> >   tools/*"? Is it possible (recommended?) to plumb Kbuild stuff into
> >   tools/, even if other parts won't migrate?
> 
> 
> I do not know.
> 
> They are different build systems with different designs.
> 
> Kbuild always works in the top of the output directory.
> Kbuild changes the working directory at most once if O= is given,
> but otherwise, it never changes the working directory during the build.
> 
> 
> The tools/ build system changes the working directory every time
> it invokes a new Make, and compiles the tool in its source directory.
> 
> 
> I do not know if all tools want to Kbuild.
> (the same applied to kselftest)
> 
> I think I can convert objtool and resolve_btfids to the Kbuild way.
> 
> 
> >
> > As is, I can't tell if this is telling people to avoid adding new stuff
> > to tools/ entirely, or just to only add to tools/ if you're able to
> > remain completely isolated from the rest of the kernel build -- as soon
> > as you want to play some part in the Kbuild-covered part of the tree,
> > you need to use Kbuild.
> 
> 
> See the code in the top Makefile.
> 
> 'prepare' depends on tools/objtool and tools/bpf/resolve_btfids.
> 
> If other tools are not prerequisites of 'scripts',
> Kbuild will not compile them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >
> > If I'm inferring the right answers to the above, then maybe an improved
> > wording could be something like:
> >
> > "The tools build system is not a part of Kbuild and tends to introduce
> > its own unique issues. If you need to integrate a new tool into Kbuild,
> > please consider locating that tool outside the tools/ tree and using the
> > standard Kbuild "hostprogs" syntax instead of adding a new tools/* entry
> > here."
> 
> 
> 
> I am fine with this description.
> 
> 
> Nicolas suggested a link to Documentation/kbuild/makefiles.rst
> 
> We can combine the two.
> 
> 
> # The tools build system is not a part of Kbuild and tends to introduce
> # its own unique issues. If you need to integrate a new tool into Kbuild,
> # please consider locating that tool outside the tools/ tree and using the
> # standard Kbuild "hostprogs" syntax instead of adding a new tools/* entry
> # here. See Documentation/kbuild/makefiles.rst for details.

yeah, thanks. Sounds good to me, too.

Kind regards,
Nicolas

Powered by blists - more mailing lists