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 DEF9D1EB3E; Wed, 31 Jul 2024 18:49:16 +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=1722451757; cv=none; b=j0jJZvXxBNofM2YkLPHnDFtIAHq84aOvq7zitI9WjxxPf58pRkUUCV4busAgs1c4rWwUThqyTihtgFfwqjO7cvxpC48haWbhARozg9KWv2/q5hsfkseZnVAzgKIUTJsc/pqKGTwKW73I1jkNquPQBXlV25QeEWlNB+6Ja0FqK1o= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1722451757; c=relaxed/simple; bh=uzxjQ56bzKqnAIMD8U1i8Zj5u3MmtLCgXeuq7UhCFVQ=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=jY/ULOXMPHhHAgNbyx2N45eIYsmR5l2DtF39sVG0ThQ6TJ4zmxOZpDqE0p6jX8Ze5aINoDBdxRqaXLNIs7esC/7OKBt9wxp/f7+UMc/3aSR3I6kFfhqe9F/k2jVrwJbDXlwDohPaLevSyu+/LCN0iN7HPUT4EKorglWNYyqwcGw= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=dlDjXXQZ; 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="dlDjXXQZ" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DB6FBC116B1; Wed, 31 Jul 2024 18:49:15 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1722451756; bh=uzxjQ56bzKqnAIMD8U1i8Zj5u3MmtLCgXeuq7UhCFVQ=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=dlDjXXQZTARa4ABc60MCHroAXU2WILUd436SKu4FkbXeZRIt1J8N/5778c0AHOCwN QbukXjoUvuTlvR8rypMc/3NS9UllwCwVcTc9GwGvFjl7edjEqJ50cKigQYirTNojbr ktszU2R7f1oMqndm9io3VP112hgBZjGrSOCV1ae2y8IzEcPTHYQp6UB+FC0VtC5MNj 7YgrLWR6TCO9DsWjaAyELDLQAqKCEfqEEYYie9a5J3qnAghROk12rwmkCkCw4FdAnZ 2aPvw5KYP5OgHqX3THqsSEkMJAhOO9dbRM/3rL4El4seR99U3dK8guM18f+aK+kDPC 3lC++RaFEQPjg== Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2024 15:49:13 -0300 From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo To: Ian Rogers Cc: Namhyung Kim , linux-perf-users , Song Liu , Adrian Hunter , Jiri Olsa , Kan Liang , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] perf bpf: Move BPF disassembly routines to separate file to avoid clash with capstone bpf headers Message-ID: References: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 10:35:12AM -0700, Ian Rogers wrote: > On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 10:08 AM Namhyung Kim wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 8:12 AM Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo > > 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