Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 17 Mar 2022 19:49:37 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To:     Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>
Cc:     open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@chromium.org>,
        "Naveen N . Rao" <naveen.n.rao@linux.ibm.com>,
        Anil S Keshavamurthy <anil.s.keshavamurthy@intel.com>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [for-next][PATCH 03/13] fprobe: Add ftrace based probe APIs
Message-ID: <20220317194937.08584828@gandalf.local.home>
In-Reply-To: <CAEf4BzaN_HnyAkVYeUmYoxvW01cFKR2FW0MwZJBL3gvkRw0TYg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20220317152458.213689956@goodmis.org>
        <20220317152522.284233550@goodmis.org>
        <CAEf4BzaN_HnyAkVYeUmYoxvW01cFKR2FW0MwZJBL3gvkRw0TYg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 15:03:33 -0700
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com> wrote:

> Do I understand correctly that this patch set was applied in your
> tree? I was under the impression that we agreed to route this through
> the bpf-next tree earlier (see [0]), but I might have misunderstood
> something, sorry.
> 
> Either way, the reason it matters is because Jiri's multi-attach
> kprobe patch set ([1]) is depending on Masami's patches and having
> fprobe patches in bpf-next tree would simplify logistics
> significantly.

I knew Jiri's patches were to go through the bpf tree, but I missed that
those were dependent on this and you wanted these to go through as well.

I had just finished my automated tests that ran these patches. I haven't
pushed them to my next branch yet so I can hold them off. I don't have
anything dependent on them.

Would you be able to take these for-next patches directly (as they all have
been tested) and you can switch my signed-off-by to Reviewed-by.

The first of the series is unrelated and will go through my tree. That's
the user_events patch.

-- Steve


> 
> So I wonder if it's still possible to route it through bpf-next?
> 
> If not, we'd need a way to get these changes into the bpf-next tree
> somehow. Having it in a separate branch that we can merge would be a
> way to go about this, I presume? But it's certainly a more complicated
> way, so it would be preferable to back it out and land through
> bpf-next.