On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 12:10:03 +0200 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 07:10:46AM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: > > > > FFS :-/ That touches all sorts and doesn't have any perf ack on. Masami > > > what gives? > > > > This is managing *probes and related dynamic trace-events. Those has been > > moved from tip. Could you also add linux-trace-kernel@vger ML to CC? > > ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl -f kernel/events/uprobes.c > > disagrees with that, also things like: > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/trace/linux-trace.git/commit/?h=probes/for-next&id=4a365eb8a6d9940e838739935f1ce21f1ec8e33f > > touch common perf stuff, and very much would require at least an ack > from the perf folks. Hmm, indeed. I'm OK to pass those patches (except for trace_uprobe things) to -tip if you can. > > Not cool. Yeah, the probe things are boundary. BTW, IMHO, there could be dependency issues on *probes. Those are usually used by ftrace/perf/bpf, which are managed by different trees. This means a series can span multiple trees. Mutually reviewing is the solution? Thank you, -- Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx>
