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=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS 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 477F8C433B4 for ; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 13:42:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16E2161042 for ; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 13:42:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229783AbhDMNmd (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Apr 2021 09:42:33 -0400 Received: from mail-wm1-f47.google.com ([209.85.128.47]:53074 "EHLO mail-wm1-f47.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229705AbhDMNmc (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Apr 2021 09:42:32 -0400 Received: by mail-wm1-f47.google.com with SMTP id y204so7377646wmg.2 for ; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 06:42:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to :references:user-agent:mime-version; bh=3I9/OJ9lGHycnotK9q1ufN0/X8H6Kn8tf7WcuJ5BgFA=; b=pOQlu7f6Q7eiHTHGB4wB5d3FAOMuC6tIBu/Qn+QJnfI/4lc5MrZTZ71qM6+bYr/7O9 a3hGrFkhT/HqQhtJvw1dCidBhbeBDYggjhrzC8ItPL427kLgOn2Esff+XShoRnWtco3O vh0DZAQ+D1iRnVwLmOoRzxVkYOUoDZl6KJpTg9LZbi9cjM9ad1uC/4cofJpYg5vPIoko ewwIcXQhrRpVEXAY5yZZdbquRjFi3EcyZ8p5MB3N4oyTkP5tu+to9w0AdftguL6vmJmX LkXeiy2a8UX62abTQDjYz4IFeyOtsw9LahGgSdBqJWfvBXwnCJxRWc5hnak49vrWLYJC GVCA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531lJeCRPJpdd3JFCClLSnNcGodifPOTgM4pq9hj0rT16rwOoYBZ n2GB5BWqzSFqSNYDtMLLS88= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzxKYMmgyjfJZgzfKEG39Vve9oy7HNlWYIhgACLW3duOhTpppoIag0LlmVYiRG/H7le0Uph/g== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:189e:: with SMTP id x30mr108707wmp.44.1618321331753; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 06:42:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([2a01:4b00:f419:6f00:7a8e:ed70:5c52:ea3]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b6sm21587062wrv.12.2021.04.13.06.42.10 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 13 Apr 2021 06:42:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH dwarves v3] libbpf: allow to use packaged version From: Luca Boccassi To: Dominique Martinet , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo Cc: dwarves@vger.kernel.org, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2021 14:42:09 +0100 In-Reply-To: References: <20210104221622.256663-1-bluca@debian.org> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-hY6bviASSnjj48kGY28T" User-Agent: Evolution 3.30.5-1.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: dwarves@vger.kernel.org --=-hY6bviASSnjj48kGY28T Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, 2021-03-31 at 10:05 +0900, Dominique Martinet wrote: > 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 th= ink > > > it would be good to have back ultimately. > > >=20 > > > Did you or someone else (Luca?) ever take the time to look at it? > >=20 > > 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. >=20 > Thanks >=20 >=20 > > > 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. > >=20 > > Please do. >=20 > 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?) >=20 > 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? >=20 > 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. >=20 >=20 > > > Would you take the patch back in if I somehow fix rpmbuild with a lib= bpf > > > package installed on fedora33? > >=20 > > Sure. I had it merged, as, IIRC, it was a opt-in procedure. >=20 > Yes, strictly opt-in and shouldn't affect developers or people building > from git without explicitly requiring to use the system's version. >=20 Hello Arnaldo, Any update on this? Thanks! --=20 Kind regards, Luca Boccassi --=-hY6bviASSnjj48kGY28T Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCgAdFiEErCSqx93EIPGOymuRKGv37813JB4FAmB1n7EACgkQKGv37813 JB6e/hAAxXNcOc8pMPMh/Vnn5oXUbMH7aqX2ChS3ijVC5gRlsXEYauthchr5i1yb yd5lPSOxH4teSa40nXhQ4KVGWpuVkeQ5QU/fG36OEs0ysXo8X0PC0pPoho44ZjLx URLkLUXFXabGWRy7opxtbUhEqN021sDI4038x7eEMiTP0lGMwQ3n7jn043d/xIHL crGn67tR5hQY0hco4rXBPf1AeB6xsxcwXP5L5H189oKiEVvob8G23EhShvt6fgyt CI5djR/wVqPnrvihBkq2PH9t7c4wzLtkJDAVG8XczZcMdLYZyRM5bBA4C0HR6m5+ gYp4hn3VUFWessr0of+A8rY9tp9T0+1f+CfCnm+Vv3u/Bcr24cstf61nS/3w5p1J YGkPzC6B8jNV/GfiB9O0FxjRQK+t8YMoJP6MNZHVtUEStmaHRVCBaIkInueFPMiH 5w03czEdvl4MfqF4jU1eo/78iEhZwZ/Uuu5b/kgFnuFXjBCXLKxR79gBNRUDh9uw QyPZAOwm7GCPfj18XdSAb0Ao9+yONadW4mcmCt4oNIrB49w0Vqd0TcLcthlLJJO3 dFwhmm1OaXJBHBndtNwIFFo222gQr9WHbIgWiG8k9P6dIr1yVbd0dGSOkjJ670BE mRGshIKYajFH0DvtaHktDyT9wjCDvuh5SJj7wfE3mGEFpJLsBxU= =iVLk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-hY6bviASSnjj48kGY28T--