[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZxluzQ3wN1aTcEXt@x1>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2024 18:46:53 -0300
From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
To: Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>
Cc: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
Kan Liang <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1 perf-tools] perf python: Fix up the build on
architectures without HAVE_KVM_STAT_SUPPORT
On Wed, Oct 23, 2024 at 02:40:45PM -0700, Ian Rogers wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2024 at 2:05 PM Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
> <acme@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > Noticed while building on a raspbian arm 32-bit system.
> >
> > There was also this other case, fixed by adding a missing util/stat.h
> > with the prototypes:
> >
> > /tmp/tmp.MbiSHoF3dj/perf-6.12.0-rc3/tools/perf/util/python.c:1396:6: error: no previous prototype for ‘perf_stat__set_no_csv_summary’ [-Werror=missing-prototypes]
> > 1396 | void perf_stat__set_no_csv_summary(int set __maybe_unused)
> > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > /tmp/tmp.MbiSHoF3dj/perf-6.12.0-rc3/tools/perf/util/python.c:1400:6: error: no previous prototype for ‘perf_stat__set_big_num’ [-Werror=missing-prototypes]
> > 1400 | void perf_stat__set_big_num(int set __maybe_unused)
> > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > cc1: all warnings being treated as errors
> >
> > In other architectures this must be building due to some lucky indirect
> > inclusion of that header.
> >
> > Fixes: 9dabf4003423c8d3 ("perf python: Switch module to linking libraries from building source")
> > Cc: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>
> > Cc: Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>
> > Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>
> > Cc: Kan Liang <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>
> > Cc: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>
>
> So this will at least conflict with:
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20241022173015.437550-6-irogers@google.com/
> where the #ifdef-ed out functions are removed. Does that series fix
> the ARM32 issue? Could we land that?
I'd prefer to have what I posted for perf-tools, as it is smaller, and
to land the patch removing those functions on perf-tools-next.
I'll try to switch testing to a librecomputer board, the rpi3 is super
slow :-)
Thanks,
- Arnaldo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists