From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752923Ab1HHVa4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Aug 2011 17:30:56 -0400 Received: from hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([71.74.56.124]:35409 "EHLO hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752788Ab1HHVay (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Aug 2011 17:30:54 -0400 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=s3eDhkhcaTLnj7IEXy8aaXUiY7FbET0mf+/2Xe0elbc= c=1 sm=0 a=JVmKiHRY1FkA:10 a=5SG0PmZfjMsA:10 a=Q9fys5e9bTEA:10 a=OPBmh+XkhLl+Enan7BmTLg==:17 a=meVymXHHAAAA:8 a=fJs8Fh-PZohCs0LbTGwA:9 a=MALq8dt0wkdbvOxrUOQA:7 a=PUjeQqilurYA:10 a=jeBq3FmKZ4MA:10 a=OPBmh+XkhLl+Enan7BmTLg==:117 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 X-Originating-IP: 67.242.120.143 Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/8] Having perf use libparsevent.a From: Steven Rostedt To: Ingo Molnar Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner , Peter Zijlstra , Frederic Weisbecker , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Borislav Petkov , Arjan van de Ven In-Reply-To: <20110806065122.GC13220@elte.hu> References: <20110805205921.909038487@goodmis.org> <20110805212409.GA21114@elte.hu> <1312592488.18583.215.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> <20110806065122.GC13220@elte.hu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15" Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2011 17:30:52 -0400 Message-ID: <1312839052.18583.243.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 2011-08-06 at 08:51 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > Ingo, I was trying to do as you said, but to do so would require a > > lot of restructuring of the perf code base. I started talking with > > Arnaldo, as he's doing a lot of the work in the tools/perf code, > > and he's the one that suggested that I do it this way. It made > > things a lot easier. > > Could you guys please talk some more and clear it up? There's > absolutely no technical reason why tools/perf/lib/ (or > tools/perf/libperf/) should be harder than tools/lib/. The issue was trying to use the Makefile within perf for the building. There was issues with the warning flags and also the deps that are automatically made with libparsevent. But you are correct, if I were to just move the pointers over to tools/perf/lib/events instead of tools/lib/events and had it be a separate entity in the build process, then it would not be any different between the two locations. But there are two non-technical issues with that. Is it wise to have a different type of build process within the tools/perf directory. The libparsevents follows the Linux build system more than the git build system. The other being, is the parse events a perf only thing? Maybe having a tools/lib would be nice even if it is. Because we can put things in tools/lib that will go as a separate package. perf could depend on tools/lib but there's no reason that tools/lib should depend on perf. -- Steve