Re: [PATCH 00/10] perf/uprobe: Optimize uprobes

[Google]

On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 12:10:03 +0200
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@vger 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@xxxxxxxxxx>