From: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
To: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>
Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org, ast@kernel.org, andrii@kernel.org,
daniel@iogearbox.net, martin.lau@linux.dev, kernel-team@fb.com,
yonghong.song@linux.dev, hffilwlqm@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 2/4] selftests/bpf: utility function to get program disassembly after jit
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2024 14:50:30 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <875815624e852e09f926696175ffd6eb6fe1cbf3.camel@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAEf4Bzatz89TPfCtK5i2UmCsc7D8Dx=udjQqe52-WzRH+DDC1A@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, 2024-08-15 at 14:06 -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
[...]
> > @@ -627,6 +669,9 @@ ifneq ($2:$(OUTPUT),:$(shell pwd))
> > $(Q)rsync -aq $$^ $(TRUNNER_OUTPUT)/
> > endif
> >
> > +$(OUTPUT)/$(TRUNNER_BINARY): LDLIBS += $$($(TRUNNER_BASE_NAME)-LDLIBS)
> > +$(OUTPUT)/$(TRUNNER_BINARY): LDFLAGS += $$($(TRUNNER_BASE_NAME)-LDFLAGS)
>
> is there any reason why you need to have this blah-LDFLAGS convention
> and then applying that with extra pass, instead of just writing
>
> $(OUTPUT)/$(TRUNNER_BINARY): LDFLAGS += $(LLVM_LDFLAGS)
>
> I'm not sure I understand the need for extra logical hops to do this
No real reason, that's how it is organized in bpftool makefile,
monkey see, monkey do. Will combine to have single LDFLAGS change.
[...]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-08-15 21:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-08-09 1:05 [PATCH bpf-next 0/4] __jited_x86 test tag to check x86 assembly after jit Eduard Zingerman
2024-08-09 1:05 ` [PATCH bpf-next 1/4] selftests/bpf: less spam in the log for message matching Eduard Zingerman
2024-08-09 1:05 ` [PATCH bpf-next 2/4] selftests/bpf: utility function to get program disassembly after jit Eduard Zingerman
2024-08-13 16:05 ` Yonghong Song
2024-08-13 22:01 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-08-15 19:27 ` Yonghong Song
2024-08-15 19:34 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-08-15 21:06 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-08-15 21:50 ` Eduard Zingerman [this message]
2024-08-15 22:04 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-08-19 19:45 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-08-19 21:05 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-08-09 1:05 ` [PATCH bpf-next 3/4] selftests/bpf: __jited_x86 test tag to check x86 assembly " Eduard Zingerman
2024-08-15 21:11 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-08-15 21:48 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-08-09 1:05 ` [PATCH bpf-next 4/4] selftests/bpf: validate jit behaviour for tail calls Eduard Zingerman
2024-08-15 21:15 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-08-15 21:42 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-08-15 22:07 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-08-15 22:10 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-08-15 22:14 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-08-15 22:19 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-08-15 21:32 ` Yonghong Song
2024-08-15 21:47 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-08-15 22:09 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-08-15 22:16 ` Eduard Zingerman
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=875815624e852e09f926696175ffd6eb6fe1cbf3.camel@gmail.com \
--to=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=hffilwlqm@gmail.com \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--cc=yonghong.song@linux.dev \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox