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 <dan...@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.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
