Date:   Wed, 12 Jan 2022 14:40:47 +0800
From:   Leo Yan <leo.yan@linaro.org>
To:     "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>,
        Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>,
        Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
        Mike Leach <mike.leach@linaro.org>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
        Jan Harkes <jaharkes@cs.cmu.edu>, coda@cs.cmu.edu,
        Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>,
        Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.com>,
        Balbir Singh <bsingharora@gmail.com>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, coresight@lists.linaro.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, codalist@coda.cs.cmu.edu,
        linux-audit@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] pid: Introduce helper task_is_in_root_ns()
Message-ID: <20220112064046.GA3316542@leoy-ThinkPad-X240s>
References: <20211208083320.472503-1-leo.yan@linaro.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20211208083320.472503-1-leo.yan@linaro.org>
Precedence: bulk

Hi David,

On Wed, Dec 08, 2021 at 04:33:13PM +0800, Leo Yan wrote:
> The kernel uses open code to check if a process is in root PID namespace
> or not in several places.
> 
> Suggested by Suzuki, this patch set is to create a helper function
> task_is_in_init_pid_ns() to replace open code.
> 
> This patch set has been applied on the mainline kernel and built for
> Arm64 kernel with enabling all relevant modules.

I'd like sync for how to merging this patch set.  Except patch 05/07,
all of other patches in this patch set have been received the reviewed
or acked tags.  So could you pick up this patch set?

Furthermore, we have another patch set "coresight: etm: Correct PID
tracing for non-root namespace" [1], which is dependent on the current
patch set and it has been Acked by Suzuki.

I'd like to get opinions from David and CoreSight maintainers Mathieu
and Suzuki, should we merge the patch set [1] via David's tree as well
to avoid dependency issue, or prefer to merge it via CoreSight tree?
If David prefers the prior option, I can resend the patch set [1] with
looping David.

Thanks,
Leo

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20211213121323.1887180-1-leo.yan@linaro.org/