Re: [PATCH v2 31/32] libluo: introduce luoctl

[Jason Gunthorpe]

On Tue, Jul 29, 2025 at 09:53:47PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 29 2025 at 13:14, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 23, 2025 at 02:46:44PM +0000, Pasha Tatashin wrote:
> >> From: Pratyush Yadav <ptyadav@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>  tools/lib/luo/Makefile       |   6 +-
> >>  tools/lib/luo/cli/.gitignore |   1 +
> >>  tools/lib/luo/cli/Makefile   |  18 ++++
> >>  tools/lib/luo/cli/luoctl.c   | 178 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>  4 files changed, 202 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>  create mode 100644 tools/lib/luo/cli/.gitignore
> >>  create mode 100644 tools/lib/luo/cli/Makefile
> >>  create mode 100644 tools/lib/luo/cli/luoctl.c
> >
> > In the calls I thought the plan had changed to put libluo in its own
> > repository?
> >
> > There is nothing tightly linked to the kernel here, I think it would
> > be easier on everyone to not add ordinary libraries to the kernel
> > tree.
> 
> As this is an evolving mechanism, having the corresponding library in
> the kernel similar to what we do with perf and other things makes a lot
> of sense.

If we did this everywhere we'd have hundreds of libraries in the
kernel tree and I would feel bad for all the distros that have to deal
with packaging such a thing :(

It is great for development but I'm not sure mono-repo directions are
so good for the overall ecosystem.

I understood perf had a special reason to be in the kernel tree? I
don't think there is any special here beyond it is new.

Jason