From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8531 invoked by alias); 20 Sep 2011 12:52:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 8523 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Sep 2011 12:52:44 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 12:52:28 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p8KCqJgi004863 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 20 Sep 2011 08:52:19 -0400 Received: from fche.csb (vpn-10-161.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.10.161]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p8KCqJ3c017365; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 08:52:19 -0400 Received: by fche.csb (Postfix, from userid 2569) id B74BC58127; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 08:52:18 -0400 (EDT) To: Timo Juhani Lindfors Cc: Mark Wielaard , systemtap@sourceware.org Subject: Re: RFC: improve build-id mismatch error reporting References: <84sjo0ri69.fsf@sauna.l.org> <1315903072.3691.3.camel@springer.wildebeest.org> <84iponih99.fsf@sauna.l.org> From: fche@redhat.com (Frank Ch. Eigler) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 12:52:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <84iponih99.fsf@sauna.l.org> (Timo Juhani Lindfors's message of "Tue, 20 Sep 2011 14:29:38 +0300") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1008 (Gnus v5.10.8) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mailing-List: contact systemtap-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: systemtap-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2011-q3/txt/msg00364.txt.bz2 Timo Juhani Lindfors writes: > [...] > The code compares UTS_RELEASE first and only then looks at > UTS_VERSION. Do you still think it makes sense to print UTS_RELEASE in > the UTS_VERSION mismatch case? (as in that case UTS_RELEASE matched > correctly). Yes, probably, to give user more hints. > Autoconf test won't work since kernel versions can change after > systemtap has been built? > I looked around a bit but I'm not quite sure how to test this runtime. Aha, but we have a run-time autoconf scheme (cribbed originally from some vmware makefiles). See buildrun.cxx, runtime/autoconf-*. - FChE