On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 12:26 PM Leo Yan <leo.yan@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 10:18:10AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 09:31:11AM +0000, Leo Yan wrote: > > > This series follows up on the discussion in [1] for fixing the static > > > linkage issue in bpftool. > > > > > > Patch 01 introduces a new feature for libelf-zstd. If this feature > > > is detected, it means the zstd lib is required by libelf. > > > > > > Patch 02 is a minor improvement for linking the zstd lib in the perf. > > > > > > Patch 03 fixes the static build failure by linking the zstd lib when > > > the feature-libelf-zstd is detected. > > > > So, this was originally reported as a perf build failure when trying a > > static build, so something not so common, no urgency, I guess, but it > > involves a tools/perf/bpftool/Makefile change, I think I can process > > this as I'll then test it in the many build containers for old distros I > > have, ok? > > As Quentin said in another reply, there is a delta change between the > Linux perf tree and bpf-next tree. So this series has a conflict on > bpf-next tree but it can be applied cleanly on perf tree. > > Before I respin to update the commit logs based on comments, I need BPF > maintainers agreement with Arnaldo on proceeding on which source tree > to proceed with. > I think it's fine to route this through a perf tree. Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@xxxxxxxxxx> > Thanks, > Leo
