On Wed, 2021-03-31 at 10:05 +0900, Dominique Martinet wrote: > Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote on Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 12:12:07PM -0300: > > > I can understand reverting due to other pressure to get a release out > > > but most distros (including fedora) frown upon vendoring code so I think > > > it would be good to have back ultimately. > > > > > > Did you or someone else (Luca?) ever take the time to look at it? > > > > Not yet, I'm right now working on it, testing patches to support clang's > > thin-LTO being used to build the kernel, so busy with it. > > Thanks > > > > > I don't see what would be so different with fedora to make this > > > unfixable, I'd be happy taking a look if nobody has so far. > > > > Please do. > > As said in my previous mail (in reply to Luca's), I cannot reproduce on > fedora 33 so I'm not sure where to look at. > Was the problem specific to one architecture (I only tried x86_64), or > maybe the build dir was tainted by a previous run of cmake with another > version of the patch? (if rpmbuild, build dir somehow included in the > tarball?) > > Looking at the timing the libbpf version should have been identical but > it's possible that system wasn't up to date or some other version change > since Feb? > > Either way I would appreciate if you could confirm you still have the > problem when you have a moment, and if so provide a bit more details on > your setup. > > > > > Would you take the patch back in if I somehow fix rpmbuild with a libbpf > > > package installed on fedora33? > > > > Sure. I had it merged, as, IIRC, it was a opt-in procedure. > > Yes, strictly opt-in and shouldn't affect developers or people building > from git without explicitly requiring to use the system's version. > Hello Arnaldo, Any update on this? Thanks! -- Kind regards, Luca Boccassi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
