| Message ID | 20151110092501.0bc676c9@gandalf.local.home (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 09:25:01AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 14:31:38 +0100 > Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> wrote: > > > On 11/10/2015 01:55 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > In my ARM randconfig tests, I'm getting a build error for > > > newly added code in bpf_perf_event_read and bpf_perf_event_output > > > whenever CONFIG_PERF_EVENTS is disabled: > > > > > > kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c: In function 'bpf_perf_event_read': > > > kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c:203:11: error: 'struct perf_event' has no member named 'oncpu' > > > if (event->oncpu != smp_processor_id() || > > > ^ > > > kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c:204:11: error: 'struct perf_event' has no member named 'pmu' > > > event->pmu->count) > > > > > > This can happen when UPROBE_EVENT is enabled but KPROBE_EVENT > > > is disabled. I'm not sure if that is a configuration we care > > > about, otherwise we could prevent this case from occuring by > > > adding Kconfig dependencies. > > > > I think that seems better than spreading #if IS_ENABLEDs into the code. > > Probably enough to add a 'depends on PERF_EVENTS' to config BPF_EVENTS, > > so it's also explicitly documented. > > > > So just do the following then? > > -- Steve > > diff --git a/kernel/trace/Kconfig b/kernel/trace/Kconfig > index 8d6363f42169..f5aecff2d243 100644 > --- a/kernel/trace/Kconfig > +++ b/kernel/trace/Kconfig > @@ -434,7 +434,7 @@ config UPROBE_EVENT > > config BPF_EVENTS > depends on BPF_SYSCALL > - depends on KPROBE_EVENT || UPROBE_EVENT > + depends on KPROBE_EVENT && UPROBE_EVENT yeah that's definitely cleaner and avoids ifdef creep in the future.
On 11/10/2015 06:14 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 09:25:01AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: >> On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 14:31:38 +0100 >> Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> wrote: >> >>> On 11/10/2015 01:55 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >>>> In my ARM randconfig tests, I'm getting a build error for >>>> newly added code in bpf_perf_event_read and bpf_perf_event_output >>>> whenever CONFIG_PERF_EVENTS is disabled: >>>> >>>> kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c: In function 'bpf_perf_event_read': >>>> kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c:203:11: error: 'struct perf_event' has no member named 'oncpu' >>>> if (event->oncpu != smp_processor_id() || >>>> ^ >>>> kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c:204:11: error: 'struct perf_event' has no member named 'pmu' >>>> event->pmu->count) >>>> >>>> This can happen when UPROBE_EVENT is enabled but KPROBE_EVENT >>>> is disabled. I'm not sure if that is a configuration we care >>>> about, otherwise we could prevent this case from occuring by >>>> adding Kconfig dependencies. >>> >>> I think that seems better than spreading #if IS_ENABLEDs into the code. >>> Probably enough to add a 'depends on PERF_EVENTS' to config BPF_EVENTS, >>> so it's also explicitly documented. >>> >> >> So just do the following then? >> >> -- Steve >> >> diff --git a/kernel/trace/Kconfig b/kernel/trace/Kconfig >> index 8d6363f42169..f5aecff2d243 100644 >> --- a/kernel/trace/Kconfig >> +++ b/kernel/trace/Kconfig >> @@ -434,7 +434,7 @@ config UPROBE_EVENT >> >> config BPF_EVENTS >> depends on BPF_SYSCALL >> - depends on KPROBE_EVENT || UPROBE_EVENT >> + depends on KPROBE_EVENT && UPROBE_EVENT > > yeah that's definitely cleaner and avoids ifdef creep in the future. Agreed, that's better.
diff --git a/kernel/trace/Kconfig b/kernel/trace/Kconfig index 8d6363f42169..f5aecff2d243 100644 --- a/kernel/trace/Kconfig +++ b/kernel/trace/Kconfig @@ -434,7 +434,7 @@ config UPROBE_EVENT config BPF_EVENTS depends on BPF_SYSCALL - depends on KPROBE_EVENT || UPROBE_EVENT + depends on KPROBE_EVENT && UPROBE_EVENT bool default y help