On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 4:02 AM Ivan Khoronzhuk <ivan.khoronzhuk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Thanks for these changes, they look good overall. It would be great if someone else could test and validate that cross-compilation works not just in your environment and generated binaries successfully run on target machines, though... [...] > > Ivan Khoronzhuk (14): > samples: bpf: makefile: fix HDR_PROBE "echo" > samples: bpf: makefile: fix cookie_uid_helper_example obj build > samples: bpf: makefile: use --target from cross-compile > samples: bpf: use own EXTRA_CFLAGS for clang commands > samples: bpf: makefile: use __LINUX_ARM_ARCH__ selector for arm > samples: bpf: makefile: drop unnecessarily inclusion for bpf_load > samples: bpf: add makefile.target for separate CC target build > samples: bpf: makefile: base target programs rules on Makefile.target > samples: bpf: makefile: use own flags but not host when cross compile > samples: bpf: makefile: use target CC environment for HDR_PROBE > libbpf: makefile: add C/CXX/LDFLAGS to libbpf.so and test_libpf > targets > samples: bpf: makefile: provide C/CXX/LD flags to libbpf > samples: bpf: makefile: add sysroot support > samples: bpf: README: add preparation steps and sysroot info > Prefixes like "samples: bpf: makefile: " are very verbose without adding much value. We've been converging to essentially this set of prefixes: - "libbpf:" for libbpf changes - "bpftool:" for bpftool changes - "selftests/bpf:" for bpf selftests - "samples/bpf:" for bpf samples There is no need to prefix with "makefile: " either. Please update your patch subjects in the next version. Thanks! > samples/bpf/Makefile | 179 +++++++++++++++++++++--------------- > samples/bpf/Makefile.target | 75 +++++++++++++++ > samples/bpf/README.rst | 41 ++++++++- > tools/lib/bpf/Makefile | 11 ++- > 4 files changed, 225 insertions(+), 81 deletions(-) > create mode 100644 samples/bpf/Makefile.target > > -- > 2.17.1 >
