On Mon, 29 May 2023 10:38:16 +0200 Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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... :-). I think we agreed on that because linux-trace-kernel didn't exist yet ;-) > > > > > 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. I already sent the patch! -- Steve
|