[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CADHxFxR-8NRN0Fwj7jhD1KKACrb0PdUp1iOBKJ+xkxaNQn_tew@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2025 15:26:26 +0800
From: hupu <hupu.gm@...il.com>
To: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
Cc: Leo Yan <leo.yan@....com>, 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
Hi Leo and Namhyung,
On Fri, Nov 21, 2025 at 6:17 PM hupu <hupu.gm@...il.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> >
> > Yep, I'm ok with the extra flag variable.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Namhyung
> >
>
> Leo, what are your thoughts on this? I’d appreciate hearing your suggestions.
>
Based on our previous discussion, I have prepared two PATCHes. In this
email, let’s continue our discussion on whether we should use the
extra flag variable. For the topic of using the kernel’s native
self-contained headers, please refer to my other email at the link
below.
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20251124072310.3592-1-hupu.gm@gmail.com/
Thanks,
hupu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists