On Tue, 2013-04-02 at 09:20 -0600, David Ahern wrote: > traditionally, perf has not required a kernel config to build it. The > above grabs some symbols for a standalone perf config. I guess that's a > question to be answered - should the kernel's config files should be > used for perf (or a tools target in general).
If you decide to only use the kernel kconfig tools but not the current tree of Kconfig files I suggest to separate things clearly. So in that case using Pconfig as a filename (as we discussed for PATCH 01/23) actually seems to be a good idea. Likewise, in that case you might want to prefix your macros with, say, PCONFIG_ instead of CONFIG_. (I think the kconfig tools support that, but I haven't checked.) > Also, perf can be built outside of the kernel tree. Tying the build to > the kernel config files would have an affect on that option. > > Something to look at for the next version. Paul Bolle -- 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/
