From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79436C433C1 for ; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 01:07:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C3026190A for ; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 01:07:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230145AbhCaBGg (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Mar 2021 21:06:36 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:41892 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S233002AbhCaBGD (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Mar 2021 21:06:03 -0400 Received: from nautica.notk.org (ipv6.notk.org [IPv6:2001:41d0:1:7a93::1]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 696BEC061574 for ; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 18:06:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by nautica.notk.org (Postfix, from userid 108) id 0AB41C01E; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 03:06:02 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=codewreck.org; s=2; t=1617152762; bh=yhP4fVZMvM63BstBnOJwnX6rNHSN2axo+Zj9mcXGSWA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=3k1oQjO8ed27QZyVxxCPLncVH34tw0CxiWuID/U4uKRD/aod16D/eXMIU/e88EbZh zi8Y0LAb/fPA2AsNhW3rHVFAPWYFKngVwnEEE9Hl4oi18gMpAnw4Msm6HO5Z7p6UXg y9vKJpn56oVfAknRVqo7/vBnzJNiPIj+cpSBGpFSW2zPOKV7vN0IwvabG/lCG6whKh bRjPS4LKvwAmyEFDmTfysRaCL4C6BTvV/5qmwCKtzyPlZHpvSdoEFq5BrHTtLySkMT TatM3uppBlDI2O68zOuRsHHHwK/borTLpdscTcO4ShSsGds8yxS/D3fIG45UfthtIN yeqMO3qLQ79dw== Received: from odin.codewreck.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nautica.notk.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ED3E5C01A; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 03:05:59 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=codewreck.org; s=2; t=1617152761; bh=yhP4fVZMvM63BstBnOJwnX6rNHSN2axo+Zj9mcXGSWA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=zboX/EIv1H2mWCLg7MLn6S2VB9gXqU5QeTkC73AyeYVJdFUFopY8ujaLgm5Lfts38 wv4mywNA/hx6l9B2DAyL80JZtBVExkQ1mM9eoeqCDYyxMIp/l0LVRu6cnhQMvcmQJY qFOLfftLasy32tyHRXfFipnhQZcxJLtRGWIH1YB/9f8c86Lu0hQTPtKvhDTTf+66hw 0mbEmU8vFB/JMl+JEIl04aY+NvE6fF0l8KS52gOjDpBGqXXN889/5u10NUeeSNiEAC dOhVxnonbZWGQlTGNuq4AY0qQJwAyzDZXw4cwm/DTJoPdTnQGBLSG+v13RNp9MHJf/ lwJGttzSE/kaw== Received: from localhost (odin.codewreck.org [local]) by odin.codewreck.org (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPA id 25f2d58a; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 01:05:56 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2021 10:05:41 +0900 From: Dominique Martinet To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo Cc: dwarves@vger.kernel.org, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Luca Boccassi Subject: Re: [PATCH dwarves v3] libbpf: allow to use packaged version Message-ID: References: <20210104221622.256663-1-bluca@debian.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: dwarves@vger.kernel.org Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote on Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 12:12:07PM -0300: > > I can understand reverting due to other pressure to get a release out > > but most distros (including fedora) frown upon vendoring code so I think > > it would be good to have back ultimately. > > > > Did you or someone else (Luca?) ever take the time to look at it? > > Not yet, I'm right now working on it, testing patches to support clang's > thin-LTO being used to build the kernel, so busy with it. Thanks > > I don't see what would be so different with fedora to make this > > unfixable, I'd be happy taking a look if nobody has so far. > > Please do. As said in my previous mail (in reply to Luca's), I cannot reproduce on fedora 33 so I'm not sure where to look at. Was the problem specific to one architecture (I only tried x86_64), or maybe the build dir was tainted by a previous run of cmake with another version of the patch? (if rpmbuild, build dir somehow included in the tarball?) Looking at the timing the libbpf version should have been identical but it's possible that system wasn't up to date or some other version change since Feb? Either way I would appreciate if you could confirm you still have the problem when you have a moment, and if so provide a bit more details on your setup. > > Would you take the patch back in if I somehow fix rpmbuild with a libbpf > > package installed on fedora33? > > Sure. I had it merged, as, IIRC, it was a opt-in procedure. Yes, strictly opt-in and shouldn't affect developers or people building from git without explicitly requiring to use the system's version. -- Dominique