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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
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> <20220322085915.6c2e7ff9@gandalf.local.home>
In-Reply-To: <20220322085915.6c2e7ff9@gandalf.local.home>
From:   Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
Date:   Tue, 22 Mar 2022 09:39:44 -0700
Message-ID: <CAM9d7ciG3Oq7VutnRpzDLqA0Cbkg=D8Aw_Gv1gC+F7+haSzf-g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] locking: Apply contention tracepoints in the slow path
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 5:59 AM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
>
> 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.

No problem!

>
> >
> > 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.

And thanks for your review.  I'll post a v4 soon.

Thanks,
Namhyung