Em Mon, Jan 05, 2015 at 12:13:35PM +0100, Jiri Olsa escreveu: > On Mon, Jan 05, 2015 at 11:57:51AM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 02, 2015 at 04:35:43PM +0100, Jiri Olsa wrote: > > > +a) Build makefiles > > > +------------------ > > > +User supplies 'Build' makefiles that contains objects summary, > > > +like for example following 'krava/Build' file: > > > + > > > + perf-y += a.o > > > + perf-y += b.o > > > + > > > +The build framework is triggered by: > > > + $ make -f Makefile.build dir=krava obj=perf > > > + > > > +which produces 'krava/perf-in.o' object file that has both > > > +a.o and b.o objects compiled in linked together. > > > + > > > +The 'Build' makefile can contains multiple objects definitions > > > +to allow building separated binaries, like: > > > + > > > + perf-y += a.o > > > + perf-y += b.o > > > + > > > + libperf-y += c.o > > > + libperf-y += d.o > > > + > > > +If the build framework is triggered by: > > > + $ make -f Makefile.build dir=krava obj=libperf > > > + > > > +it produces 'krava/libperf-in.o' object file that has both > > > +a.o and b.o objects compiled in linked together. > > > > Ok, question: you say those "Build" files are supplied by the user. Does > > that mean that everyone has to go and write their own or are we still > > using Kconfig and doing it in a more user-friendly manner? > > there's no Kconfig involved in perf build at this moment.. > > the 'Build' Makefiles are equivalents of Kbuild/Makefile makefiles > within the kernel build system.. I just move the 'K' out > > > > > I've probably missed this in the whole perf fastlane development... :) > > the reason for this switch is to have a first step towards > easy config support 'kernel Kconfig style like' in build > > also with this change it's easier to see how the perf binary > is build and what flags were used for particular object.. > at least for kernel developer used to kbuild ;-) > > I also believe that the support to allow just part of the perf > code in perf binary will force the less spaghetti code ;-)
Right, making it possible for us to build a minimalistic perf will have manifold good implications :-) But perhaps we could continue calling it the same way as in the kernel? I.e. we would then be using the "Kbuild" build configuration mechanism, the K would be there just for historic reasons. - Arnaldo -- 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/
