Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
From:   Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <arnaldo.melo@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 20 Dec 2019 19:05:06 -0300
To:     Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>
Cc:     Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <arnaldo.melo@gmail.com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@fb.com>, bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] libbpf: Fix build on read-only filesystems
Message-ID: <20191220220506.GC9076@kernel.org>
References: <20191220032558.3259098-1-namhyung@kernel.org>
 <CAEf4BzaZBSRK2M4LD-c12_2-QLa8+jpPs1E4nA9BNeUDskOMBQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20191220204748.GA9076@kernel.org>
 <CAEf4BzZW+bDxkdmXBJrrCHqBP5UT1NLJJ7mXLNqc6eypRCib6Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20191220215328.GB9076@kernel.org>
 <CAEf4BzZBnY0neQJQ=opaGTO5yMKWhqBB_YRE4QTTBNYBD-RF9g@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAEf4BzZBnY0neQJQ=opaGTO5yMKWhqBB_YRE4QTTBNYBD-RF9g@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Em Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 02:00:48PM -0800, Andrii Nakryiko escreveu:
> On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 1:53 PM Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <arnaldo.melo@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Em Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 01:45:52PM -0800, Andrii Nakryiko escreveu:
> > > On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 12:47 PM Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <arnaldo.melo@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Shouldn't this be applied to the current merge window since a behaviour
> > > > that people relied, i.e. using O= to generate the build in a separate
> > > > directory, since its not possible to use the source dir tree as it is
> > > > read-only is now broken, i.e. isn't this a regression?

> > > Sure, it can be applied against bpf as well, but selftests still need
> > > to be fixed first.

> > I guess this can be done on a separate patch? I.e. if the user doesn't
> > use selftests the only regression it will see is when trying to build
> > tools/perf using O=.

> > I think two patches is best, better granularity, do you see a strict
> > need for both to be in the same patch?
 
> Sure, it can be two separate patches, but they should go in together,
> otherwise selftests will be broken.

Sure, both have to be fixed :-)

- Arnaldo