Re: [PATCH 2/3] recipes-kernel: make perf a standalone package

[Saul Wold <saul.wold@intel.com>]

On 06/20/2012 07:31 AM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
> From: Liang Li<liang.li@windriver.com>
>
> perf has been coupled to the kernel packages via kernel.bbclass.
> While maintaining the build of perf out of the kernel source tree
> is desired the package coupling has proved to be awkward in
> several situations such as:
>
>    - when a kernel recipe doesn't want to build/provide perf
>    - when licensing of dependencies would prohibit perf and hence
>      the kernel from being built.
>
> To solve some of these problems, this recipe is the extraction of
> the linux-tools.inc provided perf compilation into a standalone
> perf recipe that builds out of the kernel source, but is otherwise
> independent.
>
> No new functionality is provided above what the linux-tools.inc
> variant provided, but the separate recipe provides baseline for
> adding new functionality.
>
> Signed-off-by: Liang Li<liang.li@windriver.com>
> Signed-off-by: Bruce Ashfield<bruce.ashfield@windriver.com>
> ---
>   meta/classes/kernel.bbclass          |    7 +----
>   meta/recipes-kernel/perf/perf_3.4.bb |   50 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>   2 files changed, 51 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>   create mode 100644 meta/recipes-kernel/perf/perf_3.4.bb
>
> diff --git a/meta/classes/kernel.bbclass b/meta/classes/kernel.bbclass
> index 690de96..8d52d74 100644
> --- a/meta/classes/kernel.bbclass
> +++ b/meta/classes/kernel.bbclass
> @@ -469,7 +469,7 @@ python populate_packages_prepend () {
>   	metapkg = "kernel-modules"
>   	d.setVar('ALLOW_EMPTY_' + metapkg, "1")
>   	d.setVar('FILES_' + metapkg, "")
> -	blacklist = [ 'kernel-dev', 'kernel-image', 'kernel-base', 'kernel-vmlinux', 'perf', 'perf-dbg', 'kernel-misc' ]
> +	blacklist = [ 'kernel-dev', 'kernel-image', 'kernel-base', 'kernel-vmlinux', 'kernel-misc' ]
>   	for l in module_deps.values():
>   		for i in l:
>   			pkg = module_pattern % legitimize_package_name(re.match(module_regex, os.path.basename(i)).group(1))
> @@ -548,8 +548,3 @@ addtask deploy before do_build after do_install
>
>   EXPORT_FUNCTIONS do_deploy
>
> -# perf must be enabled in individual kernel recipes
> -PACKAGES =+ "perf-dbg perf"
> -FILES_perf = "${bindir}/* \
> -              ${libexecdir}"
> -FILES_perf-dbg = "${FILES_${PN}-dbg}"
> diff --git a/meta/recipes-kernel/perf/perf_3.4.bb b/meta/recipes-kernel/perf/perf_3.4.bb
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..997beb4
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/meta/recipes-kernel/perf/perf_3.4.bb
> @@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
> +SUMMARY = "Performance analysis tools for Linux"
> +DESCRIPTION = "Performance counters for Linux are a new kernel-based \
> +subsystem that provide a framework for all things \
> +performance analysis. It covers hardware level \
> +(CPU/PMU, Performance Monitoring Unit) features \
> +and software features (software counters, tracepoints) \
> +as well."
> +
> +LICENSE = "GPLv2"
> +LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://COPYING;md5=d7810fab7487fb0aad327b76f1be7cd7"
> +
> +PR = "r0"
> +
> +BUILDPERF_libc-uclibc = "no"
> +
> +DEPENDS = "virtual/kernel \
> +           virtual/${MLPREFIX}libc \
> +           ${MLPREFIX}elfutils \
> +           ${MLPREFIX}binutils \
> +          "
> +RDEPENDS_${PN} += "elfutils perl python"
> +
Do you need to duplicated elfutils here?

And are both perl and python required on the runtime to use perf?

Can we package the perl and python bits independently?  Does it make 
sense to do that?  I have not used the kernel perf tools.

Sau!


> +PROVIDES = "virtual/perf"
> +
> +inherit kernel-arch
> +
> +S = "${STAGING_KERNEL_DIR}"
> +B = "${WORKDIR}/${BPN}-${PV}"
> +
> +EXTRA_OEMAKE = \
> +		'-C ${S}/tools/perf \
> +		O=${B} \
> +		CROSS_COMPILE=${TARGET_PREFIX} \
> +		ARCH=${ARCH} \
> +		CC="${CC}" \
> +		AR="${AR}" \
> +		prefix=/usr \
> +		NO_GTK2=1 NO_NEWT=1 NO_DWARF=1 \
> +		'
> +
> +do_compile() {
> +	oe_runmake all
> +}
> +
> +do_install() {
> +	oe_runmake DESTDIR=${D} install
> +}
> +
> +PACKAGE_ARCH = "${MACHINE_ARCH}"
> +