On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 10:20 AM Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 09:20:39AM -0800, Ian Rogers wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 3:22 AM Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 04:40:24PM -0800, Ian Rogers wrote: > > > > Previously tools/lib/subcmd was added to the include path, switch to > > > > installing the headers and then including from that directory. This > > > > avoids dependencies on headers internal to tools/lib/subcmd. Add the > > > > missing subcmd directory to the affected #include. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Ian Rogers <irogers@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > tools/bpf/resolve_btfids/Makefile | 19 ++++++++++++++----- > > > > tools/bpf/resolve_btfids/main.c | 2 +- > > > > 2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > > > > > this depends on changes that went to Arnaldo's tree right? > > > I can't apply this on bpf-next/master > > > > Hmm.. sorry for that. I did the work on the master branch of > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/tools/bpf/resolve_btfids/Makefile b/tools/bpf/resolve_btfids/Makefile > > > > index 19a3112e271a..de7d29cf43d6 100644 > > > > --- a/tools/bpf/resolve_btfids/Makefile > > > > +++ b/tools/bpf/resolve_btfids/Makefile > > > > @@ -35,21 +35,29 @@ SUBCMD_SRC := $(srctree)/tools/lib/subcmd/ > > > > BPFOBJ := $(OUTPUT)/libbpf/libbpf.a > > > > LIBBPF_OUT := $(abspath $(dir $(BPFOBJ)))/ > > > > SUBCMDOBJ := $(OUTPUT)/libsubcmd/libsubcmd.a > > > > +SUBCMD_OUT := $(abspath $(dir $(SUBCMDOBJ)))/ > > > > > > > > LIBBPF_DESTDIR := $(LIBBPF_OUT) > > > > LIBBPF_INCLUDE := $(LIBBPF_DESTDIR)include > > > > > > > > +SUBCMD_DESTDIR := $(SUBCMD_OUT) > > > > +SUBCMD_INCLUDE := $(SUBCMD_DESTDIR)include > > > > + > > > > BINARY := $(OUTPUT)/resolve_btfids > > > > BINARY_IN := $(BINARY)-in.o > > > > > > > > all: $(BINARY) > > > > > > > > +prepare: $(SUBCMDOBJ) > > > > > > do we need special target for that? we already have BPFOBJ dependency > > > placed in the BINARY_IN as prereq > > > > BPFOBJ is $(OUTPUT)/libbpf/libbpf.a which is needed at link time. The > > prepare step is one we have elsewhere and it creates things like the > > header files necessary to compile the C code, so we need it earlier is > > the answer. > > > > > why not place both as BINARY_IN prereq, or is there some other reason > > > for new 'prepare' target? > > > > I was trying to follow the convention elsewhere in the tree of having > > a prepare target that does things like get the necessary header files > > ready. Having prepare is useful because if an additional dependency is > > added, then it just needs to be added to prepare. It could be tedious > > to list all the dependencies for every C file, although Makefile.build > > ok, could we maybe add the BPFOBJ in prepare target as well? Agreed, added to v2. > > handles most of that. It isn't clear to me why $(BPFOBJ) is a > > dependency of $(BINARY_IN) as it is already a dependency of $(BINARY). > > I think that if you specify OUTPUT then we need the libbpf headers > to be created before we go to compile resolve_btfids objects > > thanks, > jirka Yep. I also noticed that this code is doing the "CC=$(HOSTCC)" thing. The problem with that is Makefile.include (line 2) will set things like CFLAGS based on CC and then you change it. I sent out some objtool build cleanup for this: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230105090155.357604-4-irogers@xxxxxxxxxx/ I'll add a patch for this in v2. Thanks, Ian
