On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 01:41:13PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 12:57 PM Arnaldo <arnaldo.melo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On May 27, 2021 4:14:17 PM GMT-03:00, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 12:06 PM Arnaldo <arnaldo.melo@xxxxxxxxx> > > >wrote: > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> On May 27, 2021 1:54:40 PM GMT-03:00, Andrii Nakryiko > > ><andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >> >On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 8:20 AM Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo > > >> ><acme@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >> >> > > >> >> Hi guys, > > >> >> > > >> >> Its important to have 1.22 out of the door ASAP, so please > > >> >clone > > >> >> what is in tmp.master and report your results. > > >> >> > > >> > > > >> >Hey Arnaldo, > > >> > > > >> >If we are going to make pahole 1.22 a new mandatory minimal version > > >of > > >> >pahole, I think we should take a little bit of time and fix another > > >> >problematic issue and clean up Kbuild significantly. > > >> > > > >> >We discussed this before, it would be great to have an ability to > > >dump > > >> >generated BTF into a separate file instead of modifying vmlinux > > >image > > >> >in place. I'd say let's try to push for [0] to land as a temporary > > >> >work around to buy us a bit of time to implement this feature. Then, > > >> >when pahole 1.22 is released and packaged into major distros, we can > > >> >follow up in kernel with Kbuild clean ups and making pahole 1.22 > > >> >mandatory. > > >> > > > >> >What do you think? If anyone agrees, please consider chiming in on > > >the > > >> >above thread ([0]). > > >> > > >> There's multiple fixes that affects lots of stakeholders, so I'm more > > >inclined to release 1.22 sooner rather than later. > > >> > > >> If anyone has cycles right now to work on that detached BTF feature, > > >releasing 1.23 as soon as that feature is complete and tested shouldn't > > >be a problem. > > >> > > >> Then 1.23 the mandatory minimal version. > > >> > > >> Wdyt? > > > > > >If we make 1.22 mandatory there will be no good reason to make 1.23 > > >mandatory again. So I will have absolutely no inclination to work on > > >this, for example. So we are just wasting a chance to clean up the > > >Kbuild story w.r.t. pahole. And we are talking about just a few days > > >at most, while we do have a reasonable work around on the kernel side. > > > > So there were patches for stop using objcopy, which we thought could uncover some can of worms, were there patches for the detached BTF file? > > No, there weren't, if I remember correctly. What's the concern, > though? That detached BTF file isn't even an ELF, so it's > btf__get_raw_data() and write it to the file. Done. heya, I probably overlooked this, but are there more details about that detached BTF file feature somewhere? thanks, jirka
