On November 27, 2019 9:31:41 PM GMT-03:00, Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >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. I try not to assume too much, just try to keep what's being tested to continue to at least build. >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. Take it as one, I think it's what should have been in the cset it is fixing, that way no breakage would have happened. - Arnaldo
