On 6 November 2014 14:49, Eduardo Otubo <eduardo.ot...@profitbricks.com> wrote:
> Right now seccomp is breaking the compilation of Qemu on armv7l due
> to libsecomp current lack of support for this arch. This problem is
> already fixed on libseccomp upstream but no release date for that is
> scheduled to far. This patch disables support for seccomp on armv7l
> temporarily until libseccomp does a new release. Then I'll remove the
> hack and update libseccomp dependency on configure script.
>
> Related bug: https://bugs.launchpad.net/qemu/+bug/1363641
>
> Signed-off-by: Eduardo Otubo <eduardo.ot...@profitbricks.com>
> ---
> configure | 20 +++++++++++---------
> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/configure b/configure
> index 2f17bf3..16fd7f5 100755
> --- a/configure
> +++ b/configure
> @@ -1823,15 +1823,17 @@ fi
> # libseccomp check
>
> if test "$seccomp" != "no" ; then
> - if $pkg_config --atleast-version=2.1.0 libseccomp; then
> - libs_softmmu="$libs_softmmu `$pkg_config --libs libseccomp`"
> - QEMU_CFLAGS="$QEMU_CFLAGS `$pkg_config --cflags libseccomp`"
> - seccomp="yes"
> - else
> - if test "$seccomp" = "yes"; then
> - feature_not_found "libseccomp" "Install libseccomp devel >=
> 2.1.0"
> - fi
> - seccomp="no"
> + if test "$cpu" = "i386" || test "$cpu" = "x86_64"; then
> + if $pkg_config --atleast-version=2.1.0 libseccomp; then
> + libs_softmmu="$libs_softmmu `$pkg_config --libs libseccomp`"
> + QEMU_CFLAGS="$QEMU_CFLAGS `$pkg_config --cflags libseccomp`"
> + seccomp="yes"
> + else
> + if test "$seccomp" = "yes"; then
> + feature_not_found "libseccomp" "Install libseccomp devel >=
> 2.1.0"
> + fi
> + seccomp="no"
> + fi
> fi
This is missing the logic for turning "" into "no" or printing the
feature_not_found message if the probe failed because of the CPU
being wrong. The easiest fix for that is just to roll the whole check
into one if:
if { test "$cpu" = "i386" || test "$cpu" = "x86_64"; } &&
$pkg_config --atleast-version=2.1.0 libseccomp; then
(the { ... ; } are not strictly necessary since the shell's
precedence rules mean we'll evaluate the || before the && but
I think they make the intent clearer.)
thanks
-- PMM
