[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CADHxFxTHHT0bWf__dwnZXk6E8Qb2sxL5=L5KDh_Xmzq-hNYs6g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2025 17:43:41 +0800
From: hupu <hupu.gm@...il.com>
To: Leo Yan <leo.yan@....com>, Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
Cc: acme@...nel.org, adrian.hunter@...el.com,
alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com, irogers@...gle.com, jolsa@...nel.org,
justinstitt@...gle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, mark.rutland@....com, mingo@...hat.com,
morbo@...gle.com, nathan@...nel.org, nick.desaulniers+lkml@...il.com,
peterz@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf build: Support passing extra Clang options via EXTRA_BPF_FLAGS
RESEND
On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 3:28 PM hupu <hupu.gm@...il.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Leo and Namhyung,
>
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 3:18 PM hupu <hupu.gm@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > I then added KHDR_INCLUDES to BPF_INCLUDE, pointing it to the kernel’s
> > self-contained header directory so that the build prefers headers
> > provided by the kernel.
> >
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/perf/Makefile.perf b/tools/perf/Makefile.perf
> > index 47c906b807ef..65c6e871988b 100644
> > --- a/tools/perf/Makefile.perf
> > +++ b/tools/perf/Makefile.perf
> > @@ -1202,7 +1202,8 @@ endif
> >
> > CLANG_OPTIONS = -Wall
> > CLANG_SYS_INCLUDES = $(call get_sys_includes,$(CLANG),$(CLANG_TARGET_ARCH))
> > -BPF_INCLUDE := -I$(SKEL_TMP_OUT)/.. -I$(LIBBPF_INCLUDE) $(CLANG_SYS_INCLUDES)
> > +KHDR_INCLUDES := $(abspath $(OUTPUT)/../../usr/include)
> > +BPF_INCLUDE := -I$(SKEL_TMP_OUT)/.. -I$(LIBBPF_INCLUDE)
> > -I$(KHDR_INCLUDES) $(CLANG_SYS_INCLUDES)
> > TOOLS_UAPI_INCLUDE := -I$(srctree)/tools/include/uapi
> >
> > ifneq ($(WERROR),0)
> >
> >
> > With this change verified, perf compiles successfully even without
> > explicitly specifying the cross-toolchain sysroot in the compile
> > command.
> >
>
> As an additional suggestion, I’d prefer to keep both the above patch
> and the previously discussed PATCH v3, which would mean submitting two
> PRs. From my perspective, allowing users to pass custom compilation
> options via EXTRA_BPF_FLAGS is more flexible than only configuring
> headers, so I’d like to hear your thoughts.
>
> Thanks,
> hupu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists