On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 7:56 AM Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. > You were aware of this patch and cc'ed personally (just like linux-perf-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) on all revisions of it. I addressed your concerns in [0], you went silent after that and patches were sitting idle for more than a month. But regardless, if you'd like me to do any adjustments, please let me know. [0] https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAEf4Bzazi7YMz9n0V46BU7xthQjNdQL_zma5vzgCm_7C-_CvmQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > 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? > I agree, there is no one best tree for stuff like this. So as long as relevant people and mailing lists are CC'ed we hopefully should be fine? > Thank you, > > -- > Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx>
