Re: [PATCH V2 0/9] rtla improvements

[Daniel Bristot de Oliveira]

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