From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932933AbcE0Io4 (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 May 2016 04:44:56 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:44784 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932456AbcE0Ioy (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 May 2016 04:44:54 -0400 Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 10:44:48 +0200 From: Jiri Olsa To: Hekuang Cc: peterz@infradead.org, mingo@redhat.com, acme@kernel.org, alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com, wangnan0@huawei.com, jpoimboe@redhat.com, ak@linux.intel.com, eranian@google.com, namhyung@kernel.org, adrian.hunter@intel.com, sukadev@linux.vnet.ibm.com, masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com, tumanova@linux.vnet.ibm.com, kan.liang@intel.com, penberg@kernel.org, dsahern@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/5] perf callchain: Add support for cross-platform unwind Message-ID: <20160527084448.GB23580@krava> References: <1464081629-137191-1-git-send-email-hekuang@huawei.com> <1464081629-137191-4-git-send-email-hekuang@huawei.com> <20160526174255.GA11246@krava> <5747F380.4060107@huawei.com> <20160527073848.GA30974@krava> <5747FF33.3070906@huawei.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5747FF33.3070906@huawei.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.1 (2016-04-27) X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.38]); Fri, 27 May 2016 08:44:53 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 04:02:59PM +0800, Hekuang wrote: SNIP > > > The only concern is that, if later we support more platforms, > > > there will be too much files named as 'tools/perf/util/unwind-libunwind*.c' > > > Is it acceptable or not? > > > > > > And I thought all files belongs to specific archs should > > > go to folder under 'tools/perf/arch/xxx', is that right? > > hum, I wouldn't worry about that.. but you're right, > > let's put them under arch > > But only 'tools/perf/arch/$(host platform)' will be built, in our case, > we should built the unwind-libunwind-$(arch) as long as we have > the remote libunwind libraries. So, I think there's a conflict in the > existing build script and not easy to 'put them under arch'. That's why > I choose a complex way in my previous patch. we dive into arch dirs via: arch/Build: libperf-y += $(ARCH)/ that's not changed AFAICS.. jirka