Em Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 03:48:56PM -0700, Manu Bretelle escreveu:
> On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 06:08:33PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > I wonder how to improve the current situation to detect these kinds of
> > problems in the future, i.e. how to notice that some file needed by some
> > Makefile, etc got removed or that some feature test fails because some
> > change in the test .c files makes them fail and thus activates fallbacks
> > like the one above :-\
> I think it is tricky. Specifically to this situation, some CI could try to build
> the different combinaison of bpftool and check the features through the build
> `bpftool --version`.
Right, if the right packages are installed, we expect to get some
bpftool build output, if that changes after some patch, flag it.
Does bpftool have something like:
⬢[acme@toolbox perf-tools-next]$ perf version --build-options
perf version 6.6.rc1.ga8dd62d05e56
dwarf: [ on ] # HAVE_DWARF_SUPPORT
dwarf_getlocations: [ on ] # HAVE_DWARF_GETLOCATIONS_SUPPORT
syscall_table: [ on ] # HAVE_SYSCALL_TABLE_SUPPORT
libbfd: [ OFF ] # HAVE_LIBBFD_SUPPORT
debuginfod: [ on ] # HAVE_DEBUGINFOD_SUPPORT
libelf: [ on ] # HAVE_LIBELF_SUPPORT
libnuma: [ on ] # HAVE_LIBNUMA_SUPPORT
numa_num_possible_cpus: [ on ] # HAVE_LIBNUMA_SUPPORT
libperl: [ on ] # HAVE_LIBPERL_SUPPORT
libpython: [ on ] # HAVE_LIBPYTHON_SUPPORT
libslang: [ on ] # HAVE_SLANG_SUPPORT
libcrypto: [ on ] # HAVE_LIBCRYPTO_SUPPORT
libunwind: [ on ] # HAVE_LIBUNWIND_SUPPORT
libdw-dwarf-unwind: [ on ] # HAVE_DWARF_SUPPORT
zlib: [ on ] # HAVE_ZLIB_SUPPORT
lzma: [ on ] # HAVE_LZMA_SUPPORT
get_cpuid: [ on ] # HAVE_AUXTRACE_SUPPORT
bpf: [ on ] # HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT
aio: [ on ] # HAVE_AIO_SUPPORT
zstd: [ on ] # HAVE_ZSTD_SUPPORT
libpfm4: [ on ] # HAVE_LIBPFM
libtraceevent: [ on ] # HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT
bpf_skeletons: [ on ] # HAVE_BPF_SKEL
⬢[acme@toolbox perf-tools-next]$
?
> This is actually a test that I run internally to make sure our build has some
> feature enabled.
> This is actually tested by bpftool in the GH CI:
> https://github.com/libbpf/bpftool/blob/main/.github/workflows/build.yaml#L62
> As a matter of fact, it would not have been detected because that CI uses a
> different Makefile.feature.
> Quentin and I were talking offline how we could improve bpftool CI at diff time.
> This is an example where it would have helped :)
>
> > I'll get this merged in my perf-tools-fixes-for-v6.6 that I'll submit
> > tomorrow to Linus, thanks for reporting!
> >
> > I'll add your:
> >
> > Reported-by: Manu Bretelle <chantr4@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > And:
> >
> > Fixes: 56b11a2126bf2f42 ("perf bpf: Remove support for embedding clang for compiling BPF events (-e foo.c)")
> >
> > Ok?
> SGTM. Thanks for the quick turnaround.
> Reviewed-by: Manu Bretelle <chantr4@xxxxxxxxx>
You're welcome, thanks for the detailed report, the patch was just sent
to Linus.
- Arnaldo
