Re: [perf-tools] Build-error in tools/perf/util/annotate.c with LLVM-14

From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
Date: Sun Jul 03 2022 - 13:47:11 EST

Next message: kernel test robot: "[alobakin:xdp_hints 25/52] include/linux/build_bug.h:78:41: error: static assertion failed: "(XDP_PACKET_HEADROOM - sizeof(*md) + sizeof_field(typeof(*md), magic_id) + offsetof(typeof(*md), tx_tstamp)) % sizeof_field(typeof(*md), tx_tstamp) == 0""
Previous message: kernel test robot: "[morse:mpam/snapshot/v5.18 61/147] kismet: WARNING: unmet direct dependencies detected for RESCTRL_FS_PSEUDO_LOCK when selected by X86_CPU_RESCTRL"
In reply to: Andres Freund: "Re: [perf-tools] Build-error in tools/perf/util/annotate.c with LLVM-14"
Next in thread: Sedat Dilek: "Re: [perf-tools] Build-error in tools/perf/util/annotate.c with LLVM-14"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On July 3, 2022 1:54:48 PM GMT-03:00, Andres Freund <andres@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>On 2022-07-03 10:54:45 -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
>> That series should be split a bit further, so that the
>> new features test is in a separate patch, i.e. I don't process bpftool patches, but can process the feature test and the tools/perf part.
>
>Ok, will split it further. Should I do
>
>1) feature test
>2) introduce compat header header
>3) use feature test, use header in perf/
>4) use feature test, use header in bpf/
>
>Or should 3, 4 be split to separately introduce the feature test and use of
>the compat header?

I think 4 patches are ok,

- Arnaldo

>
>Greetings,
>
>Andres Freund