From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5760727FB34 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2026 14:24:10 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1770215050; cv=none; b=Up0EU+YxI0nvlzDCQlAjUhy4OR52j2g5E9fDFCZgpbr1N9GL5zIxUdCmCKkvmDkIJ1Nprf5oWgxdjWGbD56p1l2Ohxl8U68FI2UvQZyhsHUCoFc6INJHUpu62LZ0gEomoyp/Z86PiL+1Nvy+kN6aLuIHFfwuFluXLqwG2WK1GvM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1770215050; c=relaxed/simple; bh=LmKeXqHw18VR7/jucWH91E422/D7VjkEFL7phCLgvCU=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=p2KCcnJ23Cq+FVwy/wQmvF9mEpc+sDShf23TFEs+bUGaWApcvHW9dLCrpQCwozgjF0hAQLas3OH1/biC1d4tKlLWAxgmEEuRWDV38tfSULm4NxaJX/pVHrgT17E1ZLceYpSmAitr0PeYicmFRmFbjDKS6rk6dyI6gAeqGTp3wLQ= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=r/Y6FvR3; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="r/Y6FvR3" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7629AC4CEF7; Wed, 4 Feb 2026 14:24:08 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1770215049; bh=LmKeXqHw18VR7/jucWH91E422/D7VjkEFL7phCLgvCU=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=r/Y6FvR3JTdquwtbVz2yPTqkUic8/MR9/9WLUU/Zoiu96/TGQ0cY/V8aYyUzthp9r 25e1gjJr5n28wQXZYuuTAFwfNo4OvHqSDZIuL/hQlvb9tlcFm5FjFUxZhWEojQXmCk Qu6ykp5ucbb7olnhoGJ9NWM+3qQjsIS04u4PmbZOA0WyykqYJ0qEhl1xage2feXl+T ZI8IqfUXH9I7nVrmkuJ5QJpS9oMRQU83o6067y/UGem6eTE8A6Gb8R9rNPXEw0f1va yNwO1jwxws1Z6DHFyQJckNIuUHxLqH3r5u8IWqBAaGCdiex38HbTySfeljvXMC0dOT yrCiIixv72IPQ== Message-ID: <26fe285f-2504-4ee8-8889-1451bcd64c9b@kernel.org> Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2026 14:24:06 +0000 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2] bpftool: Allow explicitly skip llvm dependency To: Andrii Nakryiko Cc: Mykyta Yatsenko , bpf@vger.kernel.org, ast@kernel.org, andrii@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, kafai@meta.com, kernel-team@meta.com, Mykyta Yatsenko References: <20260128233425.374535-1-mykyta.yatsenko5@gmail.com> <2b6f4cd9-ff0f-4a91-90ef-8d8e6812f80f@kernel.org> <1d4546ca-8849-464d-9080-ef77602134c7@kernel.org> From: Quentin Monnet Content-Language: en-GB In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 2026-02-03 17:17 UTC-0800 ~ Andrii Nakryiko >> But if really you want to do this, at least let's do it fully and give >> more control for the disassembler dependencies: I think it shouldn't be >> just LLVM in this case, there should be a way to opt-out from libbfd as >> well, which was problematic for other reasons in the first place, and >> probably some mechanism to tell whether to use libbfd or LLVM for the >> disassembler when the two are available on the machine. > > Yeah, absolutely, that makes sense. Mykyta, do you mind looking in > what's the most sensible way to do what Quentin asks? Should we just > have NO_LLVM and NO_BFD switches and take them both into account. If > LLVM or BFD is not explicitly opted-out-from then we'll just prefere > LLVM over BFD? I'd be OK with that Quentin