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

["Moessbauer, Felix" <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.

@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.