Re: [PATCH 1/1] RFC: Package perf from linux kernel tools

[Henning Schild <henning.schild@siemens.com>]

Am Wed, 20 Jan 2021 16:23:18 +0100
schrieb "Moessbauer, Felix (T RDA IOT SES-DE)"
<felix.moessbauer@siemens.com>:

> Hi,
> 
> today I implemented the packaging in the kernel recipe and fixed some
> nasty aspects like exact version numbers in the patches.
> I'll send this patch to the mailing list as well.
> 
> One issue is still that we need per-kernel patches.
> If anything in the original makefile of perf changed, our patches do
> not apply. That lead me to the initial approach with having a
> dedicated package with multiple recipes, to have different patch-sets
> per kernel version (and put it into the responsibility of the user).
> 
> Another issue with the kernel-recipe approach is that it's no longer
> possible to use the Debian kernel but customize / fix the
> linux-perf-<version> package. Maybe we need both.

But i guess debian has perf packages for kernels taken from them. So
this would only be a problem if one had a need to add python binding
support to such a kernel. In which case one could always rebuild the
same sources+config under another name ...

Henning

> @Schild, Henning (T RDA IOT SES-DE):
> Having the Python stuff in a dedicated commit is definitely a good
> idea. It's already in its own patchset. I'll send a v2 to the list as
> well.
> 
> Best regards,
> Felix
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Baurzhan Ismagulov <ibr@radix50.net>
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2021 5:31 PM
> > To: Moessbauer, Felix (T RDA IOT SES-DE)
> > <felix.moessbauer@siemens.com> Cc: isar-users@googlegroups.com;
> > Schmidt, Adriaan (T RDA IOT SES-DE) <adriaan.schmidt@siemens.com>;
> > Schild, Henning (T RDA IOT SES-DE) <henning.schild@siemens.com>;
> > Kiszka, Jan (T RDA IOT) <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] RFC: Package perf from linux kernel tools
> >
> > Hello Felix,
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 01:41:58PM +0100, Felix Moessbauer wrote:  
> > > This patch adds the linux-perf-4.19 package for a kernel that is
> > > build with ISAR.
> > > As the perf binaries have to be version specific, we patch the
> > > corresponding files from the kernel tools source to incorporate
> > > the major and minor version number.
> > > These patches are copied over from the official debianization of
> > > perf that is done in the src:linux package.
> > > Additionally, we package the perf python bindings as well and
> > > provide them as module "perf_4_19" (in the
> > > tools-perf-python.patch).
> > >
> > > As this debianization is not part of the kernel receipt, the perf
> > >  
> >
> > Suggest "receipt" -> "recipe".
> >
> >  
> > > package can be based on a different patch version of the kernel.
> > > While this might be intended, it is now the responibility of the
> > > user to ensure that both the kernel and the linux-perf-<version>
> > > packages are compatible.  
> > ...  
> > >  .../linux-perf/files/tools-perf-install.patch |  58 +++++++++
> > > .../linux-perf/files/tools-perf-python.patch  |  55 ++++++++
> > > .../linux-perf/files/tools-perf-version.patch | 119
> > > ++++++++++++++++++  
> >
> > The patches look common sense to me; ideally, it would be better to
> > handle that in the kernel and have a single kernel source package.
> > I wonder why Debian hasn't upstreamed that yet -- whether there
> > were any technical problems, or just no one happened to look at
> > that. That said, I personally could live with this till we have a
> > better solution.
> >
> > If nothing works, maybe we could relax the goal of being able to
> > build any given kernel version and experiment with conditional
> > execution paths.
> >
> >
> > With kind regards,
> > Baurzhan.