Re: [PATCH 1/1] perf bpf: Move BPF disassembly routines to separate file to avoid clash with capstone bpf headers

Re: [PATCH 1/1] perf bpf: Move BPF disassembly routines to separate file to avoid clash with capstone bpf headers

[Ian Rogers]

On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 10:08 AM Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 8:12 AM Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
> <acme@kernel.org> wrote:
[snip]
> > +perf-util-y += disasm_bpf.o
>
> I think this can be gated by LIBBFD and LIBBPF config, but not sure
> it can express the both requirements easily.

Should we gate things on libbfd? Given we can't distribute a binary
linked against it, I support deleting all libbfd support. Fixes like
this show the pain in carrying it.

Thanks,
Ian

Re: [PATCH 1/1] perf bpf: Move BPF disassembly routines to separate file to avoid clash with capstone bpf headers

[Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo]

On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 10:35:12AM -0700, Ian Rogers wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 10:08 AM Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 8:12 AM Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
> > <acme@kernel.org> wrote:
> [snip]
> > > +perf-util-y += disasm_bpf.o
> >
> > I think this can be gated by LIBBFD and LIBBPF config, but not sure
> > it can express the both requirements easily.
> 
> Should we gate things on libbfd? Given we can't distribute a binary
> linked against it, I support deleting all libbfd support. Fixes like
> this show the pain in carrying it.

I thought about it, but the problem at hand was that library A clashed
with library B for a namespace, so I fixed just that problem.

I agree that as soon as we reimplement the features that now are only
available with libbfd we should remove that code, now it is even more
isolated.

- Arnaldo