On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 12:47 PM Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <arnaldo.melo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Em Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 12:29:36PM -0800, Andrii Nakryiko escreveu: > > On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 7:26 PM Namhyung Kim <namhyung@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > I got the following error when I tried to build perf on a read-only > > > filesystem with O=dir option. > > > > > > $ cd /some/where/ro/linux/tools/perf > > > $ make O=$HOME/build/perf > > > ... > > > CC /home/namhyung/build/perf/lib.o > > > /bin/sh: bpf_helper_defs.h: Read-only file system > > > make[3]: *** [Makefile:184: bpf_helper_defs.h] Error 1 > > > make[2]: *** [Makefile.perf:778: /home/namhyung/build/perf/libbpf.a] Error 2 > > > make[2]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs.... > > > LD /home/namhyung/build/perf/libperf-in.o > > > AR /home/namhyung/build/perf/libperf.a > > > PERF_VERSION = 5.4.0 > > > make[1]: *** [Makefile.perf:225: sub-make] Error 2 > > > make: *** [Makefile:70: all] Error 2 > > > > > > It was becaused bpf_helper_defs.h was generated in current directory. > > > Move it to OUTPUT directory. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > > Overall nothing is obviously broken, except you need to fix up > > selftests/bpf's Makefile as well. > > > > BTW, this patch doesn't apply cleanly to latest bpf-next, so please rebase. > > > > Also subject prefix should look like [PATCH bpf-next] if it's meant to > > be applied against bpf-next. > > Shouldn't this be applied to the current merge window since a behaviour > that people relied, i.e. using O= to generate the build in a separate > directory, since its not possible to use the source dir tree as it is > read-only is now broken, i.e. isn't this a regression? Sure, it can be applied against bpf as well, but selftests still need to be fixed first. > > - Arnaldo > > > > tools/lib/bpf/Makefile | 14 +++++++------- > > > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > > > > > > [...] > > -- > > - Arnaldo
