From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754805AbbJGRLN (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Oct 2015 13:11:13 -0400 Received: from [8.25.196.27] ([8.25.196.27]:62870 "EHLO ham-cannon.twitter.com" rhost-flags-FAIL-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754451AbbJGRLM (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Oct 2015 13:11:12 -0400 X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.2 2452415620.twitter.com 519AD128429 X-DomainKeys: Sendmail DomainKeys Filter v1.0.2 2452415620.twitter.com 519AD128429 Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 10:11:08 -0700 From: Matt Mullins To: Adrian Hunter Cc: Jiri Olsa , acme@kernel.org, Vinson Lee , Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , Namhyung Kim , Kan Liang , Andi Kleen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf tools: get version from uname(2), not /proc Message-ID: <20151007171107.GA8650@whiteoak.sf.office.twttr.net> Mail-Followup-To: Adrian Hunter , Jiri Olsa , acme@kernel.org, Vinson Lee , Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , Namhyung Kim , Kan Liang , Andi Kleen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <1444171996-24030-1-git-send-email-mmullins@twopensource.com> <20151007081854.GA20302@krava.landal.opennet> <5614D585.4010707@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5614D585.4010707@intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 11:19:17AM +0300, Adrian Hunter wrote: > On 07/10/15 11:18, Jiri Olsa wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 03:53:14PM -0700, Matt Mullins wrote: > >> Tools in kmod (e.g. modprobe) compose the module path from the release > >> from uname(2). Because we use the UNAME26 personality, we need perf to > >> find modules located at the same path as the system tools. > > > > I guess it's easy to google this up, but could you > > please state in the changelog what's the difference > > between the current version and the UNAME26 one? > > > > Also state (and check) this change wouldn't affect other > > parts of the code that use this version (if there's any). This is the only caller of get_kernel_version. > Isn't the machine root dir for guests? uname() won't work for them. Aye, this would break --guestmount. Would it make sense to use uname() iff root_dir is the empty string, or is that too much special-casing for good taste?