Re: [PATCH v5 31/32] tracing: Convert to printbuf

[Steven Rostedt]

On Mon, 8 Aug 2022 11:15:31 -0400
Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > This change is likely to cause subtle regressions for no benefit to the
> > tracing subsystem. Hence, when it comes to risk vs reward, I see none.  
> 
> It sounds like you're saying you don't have time to maintain your 
> subsystem..? Is there anyone else actively co-maintaining tracing? Part 
> of our jobs is bringing new people in and training them (and not 
> providing a hostile work environment so they'll want to), maybe 
> something to think about.

No, it sounds like there's nothing here I need. Why do I need to review any
code that is not going to improve my subsystem?

> 
> I'm also not seeing the likelihood of subtle regressions - this isn't my 
> first kernel refactoring and not _nearly_ the biggest or the most 
> invasive. There's definitely some stuff in the tracing code code that is 
> a bit on the unorthodox side, but nothing too crazy. The code's been in 
> my tree for ages where I use tracing on a daily basis, and it passes 
> your test suite (and there was just one bug that made it through to be 
> caught by the tests, as I mentioned in the cover letter).
> 
> Anyways, if you've got specific, actionable concerns, I'll be happy to 
> take a look. Otherwise... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Like I said. I don't see the improvement. I hate changes for changes sake
alone. If there was a real improvement to the system, then I would make the
time to look at it. But currently, the only thing I get is that you want
this code in. And that's not a high enough bar.

As I stated before, and have given talks about. Changes are pulled into
Linux, they are never pushed.

-- Steve