Re: [PATCH v4] perf: bpf: Fix build breakage due to libbpf
From: Jiri Olsa
Date: Fri Jan 08 2016 - 10:52:13 EST
On Thu, Jan 07, 2016 at 06:23:03PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Thu, Jan 07, 2016 at 05:39:57PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo escreveu:
> > Em Thu, Jan 07, 2016 at 12:28:15PM +0530, Naveen N. Rao escreveu:
> > > Can you please push at least the initial 3 patches of this for v4.4?
> > > Wang Nan has posted v6 here:
> > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/2110626
> > So I tried it again today, from the v6, the latest patch with that
> > subject line in my inbox, and I get this, after applying the first three
> > patches:
> > [acme@zoo linux]$ make -C tools clean > /dev/null
> > [acme@zoo linux]$ make -C tools/perf build-test
> > make: Entering directory '/home/git/linux/tools/perf'
> > Testing Makefile
> > tests/make:15: /scripts/Makefile.arch: No such file or directory
> > make: *** No rule to make target '/scripts/Makefile.arch'. Stop.
> > tests/make:5: recipe for target 'all' failed
> > make: *** [all] Error 2
> > Makefile:81: recipe for target 'build-test' failed
> > make: *** [build-test] Error 2
> > make: Leaving directory '/home/git/linux/tools/perf'
> > [acme@zoo linux]$
> > Trying to figure this out...
> So, this doesn't seem to have been tessted, this part, specifically:
> diff --git a/tools/perf/tests/make b/tools/perf/tests/make
> index 8ea3dffc5065..cd9c3ce1a5c2 100644
> --- a/tools/perf/tests/make
> +++ b/tools/perf/tests/make
> @@ -12,7 +12,7 @@ endif
> PERF := .
> -include config/Makefile.arch
> +include $(srctree)/scripts/Makefile.arch
> # FIXME looks like x86 is the only arch running tests ;-)
> # we need some IS_(32/64) flag to make this generic
> Because $(srctree) is not set at that point, I copied the needed bits from
> tools/perf/Makefile.perf and got the patch below, which makes:L
> make -C tools/perf build-test
> Work for me again.
> This should wrap up the day nicely, making me think of Jens Axboe recent
> cool reaction to an untested patch:
> Jiri, are you ok with the patch below, on top of the second patch in
> Wang's series, that you acked?
yep, looks good to me