On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 5:39 PM Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Em Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 03:52:28PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski escreveu: > > On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 15:10:30 -0800, Stanislav Fomichev wrote: > > > We are using this script with python2.7, works just fine :-) > > > So maybe doing s/python3/python/ is the way to go, whatever > > > default python is installed, it should work with that. > > > That increases the risk someone will make a python2-only change > > and break Python 3. > > > Python 2 is dead, I'm honestly surprised this needs to be said :) > > It shouldn't have to be said, and probably it is old school to try and > keep things portable when there is no need to use new stuff for simple > tasks like this. > > Anyway, it seems its just a matter of adding the python3 package to the > old container images and then most of them will work with what is in > that script, what doesn't work is really old and then NO_LIBBPF=1 is the > way to go. > > In the end, kinda nothing to see here, go back to adding cool new stuff, > lets not hold eBPF from progressing ;-P Absolutely. I think if some distro is still using 32-bit userland it's likely so much behind anything modern that its kernel is equally old too and appeal of new features (bpf or anything else) is probably low. So if I were you I would keep 32-bit builds of perf supported, but with minimal effort. Re: patch itself. I can take it as-is into bpf tree and it will be in Linus's tree in few days. Or I can take only tools/lib/bpf/Makefile hunk and you can take tools/perf/MANIFEST via perf tree? Whichever way is fine.
