All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Arnout Vandecappelle <arnout@mind.be>
To: Shahab Vahedi <Shahab.Vahedi@synopsys.com>
Cc: "linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org"
	<linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org>,
	Alexey Brodkin <Alexey.Brodkin@synopsys.com>,
	"buildroot@buildroot.org" <buildroot@buildroot.org>
Subject: Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH v4 1/1] package/bpftool: revert bpf_cookie patch to allow building
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2023 14:12:23 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ec7ec881-a6f6-12cc-4f3f-b9c1ff2d077c@mind.be> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9a8b4ac5-6ffb-e8d8-3587-2768e004780e@synopsys.com>



On 10/02/2023 10:17, Shahab Vahedi wrote:
> On 2/9/23 21:27, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote:
>>
>> On 09/02/2023 13:23, Shahab Vahedi wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2/8/23 17:36, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It's not clear to me why you did a revert of the cookie feature rather than
>>>> using those patches. I think the first two or three should be sufficient to
>>>> fix your issue?
>>>
>>> Ideally, the correct way would be applying that pending series. But since
>>> there were comments that some of the patches might need reworking [1], I did
>>
>>   I don't see anything in that thread about rework being needed, only some
>>   complaints about some mail gateway encrypting messages so they can't be
>>   read by some recipients...
> See this [1] and the response here [2]. Having read it again, apparently it is

  Ah, but I guessed that that patch was not relevant for the issue you are 
facing. I had the impression only the first two or three patches of the series 
are relevant.

> not such a big deal. Alexander, the author, mentioned that he will redo that
> part in v3 of the patch the way David suggested. So either, I can make that
> change when submitting to Buildroot, or take it as it is. Your call.
> 
> [1]
> https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220421003152.339542-3-alobakin@pm.me/T/#m42db58567febf12040f6ba0478e1a6148c284c55
> 
> [2]
> https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220421003152.339542-3-alobakin@pm.me/T/#m293896646128262621c83e8c15c4d977f92ad0d2
> 
>>> not feel confident to add them. Therefore, I tried to keep my solution minimal
>>> and solve it by eliminating the problem. I know, it is not appealing.
>>
>>   The problem with your patch is that it is very difficult to decide if it
>>   should be kept or not when bumping the version. Plus, some people (or other
>>   packages) may rely on the feature that you remove.
> 
> I can try to apply that patch series on top of bpftool-v7.1.0-br1.tar.gz in
> buildroot. If it can be done fairly easily, I will submit it on a different
> thread.

  Thanks!

  Regards,
  Arnout

_______________________________________________
buildroot mailing list
buildroot@buildroot.org
https://lists.buildroot.org/mailman/listinfo/buildroot

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Arnout Vandecappelle <arnout@mind.be>
To: Shahab Vahedi <Shahab.Vahedi@synopsys.com>
Cc: "buildroot@buildroot.org" <buildroot@buildroot.org>,
	"linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org"
	<linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org>,
	Alexey Brodkin <Alexey.Brodkin@synopsys.com>
Subject: Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH v4 1/1] package/bpftool: revert bpf_cookie patch to allow building
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2023 14:12:23 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ec7ec881-a6f6-12cc-4f3f-b9c1ff2d077c@mind.be> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9a8b4ac5-6ffb-e8d8-3587-2768e004780e@synopsys.com>



On 10/02/2023 10:17, Shahab Vahedi wrote:
> On 2/9/23 21:27, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote:
>>
>> On 09/02/2023 13:23, Shahab Vahedi wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2/8/23 17:36, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It's not clear to me why you did a revert of the cookie feature rather than
>>>> using those patches. I think the first two or three should be sufficient to
>>>> fix your issue?
>>>
>>> Ideally, the correct way would be applying that pending series. But since
>>> there were comments that some of the patches might need reworking [1], I did
>>
>>   I don't see anything in that thread about rework being needed, only some
>>   complaints about some mail gateway encrypting messages so they can't be
>>   read by some recipients...
> See this [1] and the response here [2]. Having read it again, apparently it is

  Ah, but I guessed that that patch was not relevant for the issue you are 
facing. I had the impression only the first two or three patches of the series 
are relevant.

> not such a big deal. Alexander, the author, mentioned that he will redo that
> part in v3 of the patch the way David suggested. So either, I can make that
> change when submitting to Buildroot, or take it as it is. Your call.
> 
> [1]
> https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220421003152.339542-3-alobakin@pm.me/T/#m42db58567febf12040f6ba0478e1a6148c284c55
> 
> [2]
> https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220421003152.339542-3-alobakin@pm.me/T/#m293896646128262621c83e8c15c4d977f92ad0d2
> 
>>> not feel confident to add them. Therefore, I tried to keep my solution minimal
>>> and solve it by eliminating the problem. I know, it is not appealing.
>>
>>   The problem with your patch is that it is very difficult to decide if it
>>   should be kept or not when bumping the version. Plus, some people (or other
>>   packages) may rely on the feature that you remove.
> 
> I can try to apply that patch series on top of bpftool-v7.1.0-br1.tar.gz in
> buildroot. If it can be done fairly easily, I will submit it on a different
> thread.

  Thanks!

  Regards,
  Arnout


_______________________________________________
linux-snps-arc mailing list
linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-snps-arc

  reply	other threads:[~2023-02-10 13:12 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-06-13 21:30 [Buildroot] [PATCH] package/bpftool: revert bpf_cookie patch to allow building Shahab Vahedi via buildroot
2022-06-14  8:26 ` [Buildroot] [PATCH v2 1/1] " Shahab Vahedi via buildroot
2022-06-14  8:26   ` Shahab Vahedi
2022-06-14  9:31   ` [Buildroot] [PATCH v3 " Shahab Vahedi via buildroot
2022-06-14  9:31     ` Shahab Vahedi
2022-06-14 17:14     ` [Buildroot] " Arnout Vandecappelle
2022-06-14 17:14       ` Arnout Vandecappelle
2022-06-14 17:27       ` [Buildroot] " Arnout Vandecappelle
2022-06-14 17:27         ` Arnout Vandecappelle
2022-06-15 11:03         ` [Buildroot] " Shahab Vahedi via buildroot
2022-06-15 11:03           ` Shahab Vahedi
2022-06-15 11:10       ` [Buildroot] " Shahab Vahedi via buildroot
2022-06-15 11:10         ` Shahab Vahedi
2022-06-15 23:27         ` [Buildroot] " James Hilliard
2022-06-15 23:27           ` James Hilliard
2022-06-16  8:11           ` Shahab Vahedi via buildroot
2022-06-16  8:11             ` Shahab Vahedi
2022-06-19 15:20             ` Arnout Vandecappelle
2022-06-19 15:20               ` Arnout Vandecappelle
2022-06-19 23:19               ` James Hilliard
2022-06-19 23:19                 ` James Hilliard
2022-06-20  6:45                 ` Arnout Vandecappelle
2022-06-20  6:45                   ` Arnout Vandecappelle
2022-06-20  9:17                   ` James Hilliard
2022-06-20  9:17                     ` James Hilliard
2022-06-20 18:27                     ` Arnout Vandecappelle
2022-06-20 18:27                       ` Arnout Vandecappelle
2022-08-09  9:46                       ` James Hilliard
2022-08-09  9:46                         ` James Hilliard
2022-06-15 10:57 ` [Buildroot] [PATCH v4 " Shahab Vahedi via buildroot
2022-06-15 10:57   ` Shahab Vahedi
2022-06-24 14:21   ` Shahab Vahedi via buildroot
2022-06-24 14:21     ` Shahab Vahedi
2023-02-08 16:36   ` Arnout Vandecappelle
2023-02-08 16:36     ` Arnout Vandecappelle
2023-02-09 12:23     ` Shahab Vahedi
2023-02-09 12:23       ` Shahab Vahedi via buildroot
2023-02-09 20:27       ` Arnout Vandecappelle
2023-02-09 20:27         ` Arnout Vandecappelle
2023-02-10  9:17         ` Shahab Vahedi via buildroot
2023-02-10  9:17           ` Shahab Vahedi
2023-02-10 13:12           ` Arnout Vandecappelle [this message]
2023-02-10 13:12             ` Arnout Vandecappelle

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=ec7ec881-a6f6-12cc-4f3f-b9c1ff2d077c@mind.be \
    --to=arnout@mind.be \
    --cc=Alexey.Brodkin@synopsys.com \
    --cc=Shahab.Vahedi@synopsys.com \
    --cc=buildroot@buildroot.org \
    --cc=linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.