Re: tools build: Unused function, incomplete rename

[Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>]

On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 05:42:47PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 04:48:52PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo escreveu:
> > Em Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 04:38:42PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo escreveu:
> > > Em Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 04:23:34PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo escreveu:
> > > > 	While trying to figure out why the bpf feature test is always
> > > > triggering the display of the "Auto-detecting system features" I noticed
> > > > this pattern:
> >  
> > > Another problem, this time in how tools/lib/bpf/ specifies which
> > > features to test for and which ones should have the feature detection
> > > shown, does the following patch makes sense? I think it does because
> > > FEATURE_TESTS looks like the ones that will be tested, and
> > > FEATURE_DISPLAY the ones that will appear...:
> > 
> > So the original problem seems to be this:
> > 
> >   [acme@felicio linux]$ cat /tmp/build/perf/FEATURE-DUMP 
> >   feature-libelf(1) feature-libelf-getphdrnum(1) feature-libelf-mmap(1) feature-bpf(1)
> > 
> > This is the content at the end of a build, i.e. the FEATURE-DUMP for
> > tools/lib/ebpf/ usage of the feature detection system, since
> > tools/perf/ uses the same file and selects a different set of
> > features.
> > 
> > I think that ebpf should use a separate directory, inside $(OUTPUT),
> > this way we would have $(OUTPUT)/FEATURE-DUMP for perf and
> > $(OUTPUT)/bpf/FEATURE-DUMP for ebpf.
> 
> [acme@felicio linux]$ ls -la /tmp/build/perf/FEATURE-DUMP
> -rw-rw-r--. 1 acme acme 338 Sep 18 17:38 /tmp/build/perf/FEATURE-DUMP
> [acme@felicio linux]$ ls -la /tmp/build/perf/FEATURE-DUMP.libbpf 
> -rw-rw-r--. 1 acme acme 85 Sep 18 17:38 /tmp/build/perf/FEATURE-DUMP.libbpf
> [acme@felicio linux]$
> 
> Ok, patch below fixes this one, now the second run doesn't auto detects
> things again, i.e. libbpf feature detection doesn't stomps on perf's,
> I'll get those patches in a patchkit and send over the weekend. If you
> find anything fishy with it, holler.

it looks ok.. btw IMO sharing output directory for perf
and related libs could bite us in the future.. I think
we should base it to tools directory.. I'll try to come
up with something

thanks,
jirka