Re: [PATCH v2 05/18] perf trace beauty: Make beauty generated C code standalone .o files

[sashiko-bot@kernel.org]

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Medium] The commit message claims to add `perf-util-$(CONFIG_TRACE) += trace/beauty/`, but the actual patch uses `perf-util-y += trace/beauty/`.
--

commit 64f2b861c8affb434c0dc658c744d4faf0fb24fa
Author: Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com>

perf trace beauty: Make beauty generated C code standalone .o files

This commit refactors the perf trace beauty framework to compile generated
C code and formatting scripts as standalone object files, rather than
embedding them directly. This encapsulation improves parallel build
performance and cleans up Makefile dependencies.

> 2. Create fsconfig.c and flatten embedded beauty .c files to compile as
>    independent standalone objects via trace/beauty/Build, exporting their
>    formatting functions via beauty.h and env.h. Switch arch_errno_names.o
>    and syscalltbl.o assignments directly to perf-util-y and add a top-level
>    recursive kbuild hook (perf-util-$(CONFIG_TRACE) += trace/beauty/) to
>    compile them into libperf-util.a, resolving remote linkage for standalone
>    python extensions.

Is this description accurate regarding the recursive kbuild hook? The message
states it adds perf-util-$(CONFIG_TRACE) += trace/beauty/, but looking at the
actual patch, it is added unconditionally:

> diff --git a/tools/perf/Build b/tools/perf/Build
> index b03cc59dabf81..e18c80a5c1bca 100644
> --- a/tools/perf/Build
> +++ b/tools/perf/Build
> @@ -34,6 +34,8 @@ ifeq ($(CONFIG_LIBTRACEEVENT),y)
>    perf-$(CONFIG_TRACE) += trace/beauty/
>  endif
>  
> +perf-util-y += trace/beauty/
> +
>  perf-$(CONFIG_LIBELF) += builtin-probe.o

[ ... ]

Functionally, using perf-util-y appears correct since arch_errno_names.o
and syscalltbl.o are needed by util/env.c and util/bpf-trace-summary.c
respectively, which are compiled into libperf-util.a regardless of whether
CONFIG_TRACE is enabled. 

Could the commit message be updated to reflect the actual implementation?

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260512174638.120445-1-irogers@google.com?part=5