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:   Tue, 22 Mar 2022 08:59:15 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To:     Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Radoslaw Burny <rburny@google.com>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
        bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] locking: Apply contention tracepoints in the slow
 path
Message-ID: <20220322085915.6c2e7ff9@gandalf.local.home>
In-Reply-To: <CAM9d7cgCEsH6grH556Js6VX-cXAO_3hT7C+RSm+sxxBDgxHvig@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20220316224548.500123-1-namhyung@kernel.org>
        <20220316224548.500123-3-namhyung@kernel.org>
        <YjSBRNxzaE9c+F/1@boqun-archlinux>
        <YjS2rlezTh9gdlDh@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
        <CAM9d7cjUR6shddKM2h9uFXgQf+0F504fnJmKRSfc3+PG3TmEyg@mail.gmail.com>
        <20220318180750.744f08d4@gandalf.local.home>
        <CAM9d7ci-91efxreUvLBhkAcs0rpngzR9+3BnZBDb4zLai2Ewcw@mail.gmail.com>
        <CAM9d7cgCEsH6grH556Js6VX-cXAO_3hT7C+RSm+sxxBDgxHvig@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 22:31:30 -0700
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org> wrote:

> > Thanks for the info.  But it's unclear to me if it provides the custom
> > event with the same or different name.  Can I use both of the original
> > and the custom events at the same time?  

Sorry, missed your previous question.

> 
> I've read the code and understood that it's a separate event that can
> be used together.  Then I think we can leave the tracepoint with the
> return value and let users customize it for their needs later.

Right, thanks for looking deeper at it.

-- Steve