On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 10:01:36PM +0530, Naveen N. Rao wrote: > On 2015/09/29 12:47PM, Jiri Olsa wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 01:30:10PM +0530, Naveen N. Rao wrote: > > > > SNIP > > > > > > > Suka has also posted a fix for this with a different approach [1]. > > > > > Can > > > > > you please ack/pull one of these versions? Building perf is broken on > > > > > v4.3-rc due to this. > > > > > > > > I did not get any answer for additional comments I made to the patch > > > > (couldnt get marc.info working, sending the patch again) > > > > > > Hi Jiri, > > > I concur with the changes you proposed to my patch here (getting rid of > > > the weak variant): > > > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/2046108 > > > > > > I am aware of the other approach you posted (and the one attached > > > below). When I said "please ack/pull one of these versions", I meant one > > > of: your version, Suka's and mine. > > > > I was hoping somebody could test it on ppc ;-) > > > > I think the last version (in my last email) that keeps the weak > > variable is correct, let's wait for Arnaldo to sort this out > > I just tried it, but it fails. As Suka points out in his patch: > "Adding perf_regs.o to util/Build unconditionally, exposes a > redefinition error for 'perf_reg_value()' function (due to the static > inline version in util/perf_regs.h). So use #ifdef > HAVE_PERF_REGS_SUPPORT' around that function."
could you (or Suka) please reply in here with the patch? thanks, jirka _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
