[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20241211202630.GA3169297@e132581.arm.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2024 20:26:30 +0000
From: Leo Yan <leo.yan@....com>
To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
Cc: Quentin Monnet <qmo@...nel.org>, Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>,
Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@...il.com>, Song Liu <song@...nel.org>,
Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@...ux.dev>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>, Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>,
Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
Nick Terrell <terrelln@...com>, Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
"Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>,
James Clark <james.clark@...aro.org>,
Guilherme Amadio <amadio@...too.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
bpf@...r.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] bpftool: Fix the static linkage failure
On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 10:18:10AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 09:31:11AM +0000, Leo Yan wrote:
> > This series follows up on the discussion in [1] for fixing the static
> > linkage issue in bpftool.
> >
> > Patch 01 introduces a new feature for libelf-zstd. If this feature
> > is detected, it means the zstd lib is required by libelf.
> >
> > Patch 02 is a minor improvement for linking the zstd lib in the perf.
> >
> > Patch 03 fixes the static build failure by linking the zstd lib when
> > the feature-libelf-zstd is detected.
>
> So, this was originally reported as a perf build failure when trying a
> static build, so something not so common, no urgency, I guess, but it
> involves a tools/perf/bpftool/Makefile change, I think I can process
> this as I'll then test it in the many build containers for old distros I
> have, ok?
As Quentin said in another reply, there is a delta change between the
Linux perf tree and bpf-next tree. So this series has a conflict on
bpf-next tree but it can be applied cleanly on perf tree.
Before I respin to update the commit logs based on comments, I need BPF
maintainers agreement with Arnaldo on proceeding on which source tree
to proceed with.
Thanks,
Leo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists