On 5/29/23 10:28, Steven Rostedt wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > Could you make sure to Cc linux-trace-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and not > linux-trace-devel. The former is for any patch that goes into the > kernel repo, the later is for the tracing libraries (like libtracefs). > The reason why this matters is that the patchwork that is associated to > the Linux kernel tree will not get these (and I will not work on them > when I'm working on kernel patches). But it will go into the > patchwork for the libraries (and never be processed by the patchwork > infrastructure), and I will likely not work on them, because when I > look at the library patchwork, I ignore anything that goes into the > kernel. Sure, I will do that. IIRC, we agreed that we would use linux-trace-devel for rtla because it is a user-space tool. But I agree with you, as they are patches going to the kernel repo, linux-trace-kernel is a better place. It is easier to myself too... :-). > > Perhaps resend with the proper Cc and it will then be processed. I > allowed this to happen before, but that's because I did everything > manually and not with my scripts. And I'm tired of doing that. I will do that in the v3. I will also update the maintainers entry for RTLA and RV, as both are pointing to linux-trace-devel. Thanks! -- Daniel > > Thanks, > > -- Steve
|