* Re: [PATCH 1/1] perf bpf: Move BPF disassembly routines to separate file to avoid clash with capstone bpf headers [not found] ` <CAM9d7cgTrDEdAn=dv9ciRZfpMdYwdmDrAAvsYEYE=GssPS_aWw@mail.gmail.com> @ 2024-07-31 17:35 ` Ian Rogers 2024-07-31 18:49 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo 0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread From: Ian Rogers @ 2024-07-31 17:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Namhyung Kim, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo, linux-perf-users Cc: Song Liu, Adrian Hunter, Jiri Olsa, Kan Liang, Linux Kernel Mailing List 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/1] perf bpf: Move BPF disassembly routines to separate file to avoid clash with capstone bpf headers 2024-07-31 17:35 ` [PATCH 1/1] perf bpf: Move BPF disassembly routines to separate file to avoid clash with capstone bpf headers Ian Rogers @ 2024-07-31 18:49 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo @ 2024-07-31 18:49 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ian Rogers Cc: Namhyung Kim, linux-perf-users, Song Liu, Adrian Hunter, Jiri Olsa, Kan Liang, Linux Kernel Mailing List 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2024-07-31 18:49 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <ZqpUSKPxMwaQKORr@x1>
[not found] ` <CAM9d7cgTrDEdAn=dv9ciRZfpMdYwdmDrAAvsYEYE=GssPS_aWw@mail.gmail.com>
2024-07-31 17:35 ` [PATCH 1/1] perf bpf: Move BPF disassembly routines to separate file to avoid clash with capstone bpf headers Ian Rogers
2024-07-31 18:49 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).