Re: [PATCH v3 0/8] tools: fix compilation failure caused by init_disassemble_info API changes

[Daniel Borkmann]

On 8/1/22 8:02 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 04:15:19PM +0100, Quentin Monnet escreveu:
> > On 01/08/2022 13:45, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > > Em Sun, Jul 31, 2022 at 06:38:26PM -0700, Andres Freund escreveu:
> > > > binutils changed the signature of init_disassemble_info(), which now causes
> > > > compilation failures for tools/{perf,bpf} on e.g. debian unstable. Relevant
> > > > binutils commit:
> > > > https://sourceware.org/git/?p=binutils-gdb.git;a=commit;h=60a3da00bd5407f07
> > > >
> > > > I first fixed this without introducing the compat header, as suggested by
> > > > Quentin, but I thought the amount of repeated boilerplate was a bit too
> > > > much. So instead I introduced a compat header to wrap the API changes. Even
> > > > tools/bpf/bpftool/jit_disasm.c, which needs its own callbacks for json, imo
> > > > looks nicer this way.
> > > >
> > > > I'm not regular contributor, so it very well might be my procedures are a
> > > > bit off...
> > > >
> > > > I am not sure I added the right [number of] people to CC?
> > >
> > > I think its ok
> > >   
> > > > WRT the feature test: Not sure what the point of the -DPACKAGE='"perf"' is,
> > >
> > > I think its related to libbfd, and it comes from a long time ago, trying
> > > to find the cset adding that...
> > >
> > > > nor why tools/perf/Makefile.config sets some LDFLAGS/CFLAGS that are also
> > > > in feature/Makefile and why -ldl isn't needed in the other places. But...
> > > >
> > > > V2:
> > > > - split patches further, so that tools/bpf and tools/perf part are entirely
> > > >    separate
> > >
> > > Cool, thanks, I'll process the first 4 patches, then at some point the
> > > bpftool bits can be merged, alternatively I can process those as well if
> > > the bpftool maintainers are ok with it.
> > >
> > > I'll just wait a bit to see if Jiri and others have something to say.
> > >
> > > - Arnaldo
> >
> > Thanks for this work! For the series:
> >
> > Acked-by: Quentin Monnet <quentin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > For what it's worth, it would make sense to me that these patches remain
> > together (so, through Arnaldo's tree), given that both the perf and
> > bpftool parts depend on dis-asm-compat.h being available.
>
> Ok, so I'm tentatively adding it to my local tree to do some tests, if
> someone disagrees, please holler.

Ack, sgtm. Please route these fixes via your tree. Thanks Arnaldo!