Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 18 Jan 2018 10:41:39 -0300 | From | Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 01/10] perf tools: Integrating the CoreSight decoding library |
| |
Em Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 09:06:40AM +0100, Jiri Olsa escreveu: > On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 01:30:33PM -0700, Mathieu Poirier wrote: > > On 16 January 2018 at 05:15, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 11:13:05AM -0700, Mathieu Poirier wrote: > > >> +++ b/tools/build/Makefile.feature > > >> @@ -66,7 +66,8 @@ FEATURE_TESTS_BASIC := \ > > >> bpf \ > > >> sched_getcpu \ > > >> sdt \ > > >> - setns > > >> + setns \ > > >> + libopencsd > > >> > > >> # FEATURE_TESTS_BASIC + FEATURE_TESTS_EXTRA is the complete list > > >> # of all feature tests > > >> @@ -108,7 +109,8 @@ FEATURE_DISPLAY ?= \ > > >> zlib \ > > >> lzma \ > > >> get_cpuid \ > > >> - bpf > > >> + bpf \ > > >> + libopencsd
> > > we put in this list only generic libraries, this one seems arch > > > specific please put it into FEATURE_TESTS_EXTRA list
> > I was thinking that libopencsd should fall in the same category as > > libunwind-arm and libunwind-aarch64. Both are not architecture > > specific and used to process traces acquired on ARM platforms. As > > such I suggest to keep libopencsd as part of FEATURE_TESTS_BASIC and > > remove it from under FEATURE_DISPLAY - how does that sound to you?
> ok, that sounds good
Hi Jiri,
Shouldn't libopencsd be treated like libbabeltrace was before the required version was widely available in distros?
I.e. these csets should have the rationale for that:
Enabling it once it became widely available:
24787afbcd01 ("perf tools: Enable LIBBABELTRACE by default")
Disabling it because we would need to get things from tarballs/git repos, build it in our machines, as requested by Ingo:
6ab2b762befd ("perf build: Disable libbabeltrace check by default")
- Arnaldo
| |