On Fri, 2021-01-15 at 12:29 -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > Em Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 12:23:25PM -0800, Andrii Nakryiko escreveu: > > On Sun, Jan 3, 2021 at 1:30 PM Luca Boccassi <bluca@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Sun, 2021-01-03 at 11:10 -0800, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > > > > On Sat, Jan 2, 2021 at 10:25 AM Luca Boccassi <bluca@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > wrote: > > > > > Add a new CMake option, LIBBPF_EMBEDDED, to switch between the > > > > > embedded version and the system version (searched via pkg-config) > > > > > of libbpf. Set the system version as the default. > > > > > > > > > > > > > There's been a lot of arguments about libbpf as a submodule, so I > > > > don't think we need to go about pros and cons again, but I just > > > > wanted > > > > to cast my vote against doing this at all. Having pahole built with > > > > libbpf statically (only) was a great thing for me so far with > > > > iterating quickly and adopting new APIs without overcomplicating the > > > > source code with all sorts of feature detection code. Without it, > > > > adopting libbpf's faster string deduplication, BTF writing APIs, > > > > module/split BTFs, etc, etc, would be much bigger PITA and/or would > > > > prolong such changes. To the point that I personally wouldn't bother > > > > with some of them at all. Distro maintainers obviously don't care > > > > about such inconveniences for developers, but it's a real factor in > > > > determining what kind of functionality is implemented in pahole, so I > > > > hope Arnaldo won't dismiss this without thinking about this > > > > carefully. > > Hey, having tools/perf/ and tools/lib/perf, tools/lib/bpf, etc all in > one place is really nice :-) > > > > You know very well that it's not about caring or not caring :-) There > > > are simply conflicting interests, and both sides are valid. > > > I didn't mean it in a negative way. Different priorities and interests > > is a better way to put it, sure. > > I think the default should be submodules as we're still very much in > flux, adding new features, etc. > > Disto maintainers can make sure they know what they're doing when making > tools use libbpf as a separate package. Sure, v3 has the option as default-disabled already, not a problem at all. > I'm coming back from vacation, so trying to zip thru a lot of emails, so > just thought about sharing my first reaction to this in a quick way. No worries and no rush. -- Kind regards, Luca Boccassi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
