[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20240710235616.5a9142faf152572db62d185c@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2024 23:56:16 +0900
From: Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@...nel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@...il.com>, Andrii Nakryiko
<andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>, mingo@...nel.org, andrii@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rostedt@...dmis.org, oleg@...hat.com,
clm@...a.com, paulmck@...nel.org, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] perf/uprobe: Optimize uprobes
On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 12:10:03 +0200
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> 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@...r 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@...nel.org>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists