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 9BDF125A2DD; Tue, 25 Mar 2025 15:27:38 +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=1742916458; cv=none; b=UFUYFdsd6Zn+yjoWpjZ7XPPnXg2vuQRuusWRSZzrDjvMAde4XcQiq16C8t1FIeo1C7G41PAfJW/MaUcCDqyD/9fJ3JT5/MnQd5lMYt/lFQn7b/kfCFZr4/YBmwFY7E308bMda+fZhAzbqAsCf3g/wj26KuMUmf44pTQNTuebFuM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1742916458; c=relaxed/simple; bh=kBSdYtzA9BOEoK+BTjkYPoIMn3M4gtTS4Y3w0W6TsA0=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=pPV1dBZ9eG4YN2MPces4zQvMpfcyMzrx86xm/3+k/gkiuNs4HWWlTvFu4Lh8YvExMORxmyg6jMl9Cm69c5X4GtxEC5ynbb5ZVor52Noh4zoVOZKffTNtAQQQWBvCQGkpw08Np2g7rpPsuxTZO8FZ079VJb8RCoUhZjZX8SWEq5o= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=XpabP0Fy; 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="XpabP0Fy" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4C778C4CEE4; Tue, 25 Mar 2025 15:27:36 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1742916458; bh=kBSdYtzA9BOEoK+BTjkYPoIMn3M4gtTS4Y3w0W6TsA0=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=XpabP0FyMI9754psd6hZwF0ek3DOl/IO725jDQA5BgN7MLEuyyiCnSZYyED+qmPa7 pulPx2PzAWLlCekAgRiczGkGK4ngc8Y7BeqySZF1FDpZhwobAzuPKfanNP+BSrIPrv YjI1YsVHLcYb00nVG9HNIr8IyQzCkl1yvKj9y1EyCnIgTahWZkHM+Tw/cGGIYb13mu Qiv66lchO+3/SKpFO3a9Eaka9OBV8tWpPWXq+kXDSw1WcKh50yX448ckeyII15HUdg dFE6dnotAIsR2fQ23rv2hvSbD+JZuNa2mCTFaaNn0Tt07ZcDbI3fkQyvCCZfQb3BsZ S3tnsdhkSpX5Q== Message-ID: Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2025 15:27:34 +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: [linux-next-20250324]/tool/bpf/bpftool fails to complie on linux-next-20250324 To: Tomas Glozar Cc: Saket Kumar Bhaskar , Venkat Rao Bagalkote , Hari Bathini , bpf , LKML , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, jkacur@redhat.com, lgoncalv@redhat.com, gmonaco@redhat.com, williams@redhat.com, rostedt@goodmis.org References: <5df6968a-2e5f-468e-b457-fc201535dd4c@linux.ibm.com> <8b0b2a41-203d-41f8-888d-2273afb877d0@qmon.net> <15370998-6a91-464d-b680-931074889bc1@kernel.org> From: Quentin Monnet Content-Language: en-GB In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > My commits sets BPFTOOL to bpftool since otherwise, the feature check > would fail, as BPFTOOL wouldn't be defined, since it is not passed to > the feature detection make call. Sorry I don't understand the issue, why not simply rename the variable that you introduced in tools/build/feature/Makefile at the same time, as well? That should solve it, no? This way you don't have to export it from the rtla Makefiles. Or am I missing something? 2025-03-25 16:09 UTC+0100 ~ Tomas Glozar > út 25. 3. 2025 v 15:59 odesílatel Tomas Glozar napsal: >> Shouldn't the selftests always test the in-tree bpftool instead of the >> system one? Let's say there is a stray BPFTOOL environmental variable. >> In that case, the tests will give incorrect, possibly false negative >> results, if the user is expecting selftests to test what is in the >> kernel tree. If it is intended to also be able to test with another I think this was the intent. >> version of bpftool, we can work around the problem by removing the >> BPFTOOL definition from tools/scripts/Makefile.include and exporting >> it from the rtla Makefiles instead, to make sure the feature tests see >> it. The problem with that is, obviously, that future users of the >> bpftool feature check would have to do the same, or they would always >> fail, unless the user sets BPFTOOL as an environment variable >> themselves. > > Or the selftests and other users could use another variable, like > BPFTOOL_TEST or BPFTOOL_INTERNAL. Not sure what you BPF folks think > about that. I believe assuming BPFTOOL refers to the system bpftool > (just like it does for all the other tools) is quite reasonable. The variable name needs to change either for rtla + probe, or for all BPF utilities relying on it, indeed. As far as I can see, this is the sched_ext and runqslower utilities as well as the selftests for bpf, sched_ext, and hid. I'd argue that the variable has been in use in the Makefiles for these tools and selftests for a while, and renaming it might produce errors for anyone already using it to pass a specfic version of bpftool to try. > The reason why I opted to use the system bpftool is that bpftool > itself has a lot of dependencies Note: Not that many dependencies, most of them are optional. For bootstrap bpftool we pass -lelf, -lz, sometimes -lzstd. Quentin