From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753679AbbIRTs5 (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Sep 2015 15:48:57 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.136]:46780 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752509AbbIRTs4 (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Sep 2015 15:48:56 -0400 Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 16:48:52 -0300 From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo To: Jiri Olsa Cc: Ingo Molnar , Namhyung Kim , Adrian Hunter , David Ahern , Wang Nan , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: tools build: Unused function, incomplete rename Message-ID: <20150918194852.GY11551@kernel.org> References: <20150918192334.GW11551@kernel.org> <20150918193842.GX11551@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150918193842.GX11551@kernel.org> X-Url: http://acmel.wordpress.com User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Em Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 04:38:42PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo escreveu: > Em Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 04:23:34PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo escreveu: > > While trying to figure out why the bpf feature test is always > > triggering the display of the "Auto-detecting system features" I noticed > > this pattern: > Another problem, this time in how tools/lib/bpf/ specifies which > features to test for and which ones should have the feature detection > shown, does the following patch makes sense? I think it does because > FEATURE_TESTS looks like the ones that will be tested, and > FEATURE_DISPLAY the ones that will appear...: So the original problem seems to be this: [acme@felicio linux]$ cat /tmp/build/perf/FEATURE-DUMP feature-libelf(1) feature-libelf-getphdrnum(1) feature-libelf-mmap(1) feature-bpf(1) This is the content at the end of a build, i.e. the FEATURE-DUMP for tools/lib/ebpf/ usage of the feature detection system, since tools/perf/ uses the same file and selects a different set of features. I think that ebpf should use a separate directory, inside $(OUTPUT), this way we would have $(OUTPUT)/FEATURE-DUMP for perf and $(OUTPUT)/bpf/FEATURE-DUMP for ebpf. - Arnaldo