Re: [PATCH RFC 05/12] mm/slab: abstract slabobj_ext.objcg access

[Ye Liu <ye.liu@linux.dev>]

在 2026/7/21 21:20, Vlastimil Babka (SUSE) 写道:
> On 7/21/26 04:00, Ye Liu wrote:
>>
>> 在 2026/7/21 03:58, Omar Sandoval 写道:
>>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2026 at 12:00:29PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka (SUSE) wrote:
>>>> On 7/15/26 12:10, Vlastimil Babka (SUSE) wrote:
>>> FWIW, if these scripts were in the drgn repo with test cases, these
>>> breakages would be caught by our CI and someone (usually me) would fix
>>> them up promptly :)
>>
>> When I first used the drgn tool, I noticed that some scripts were directly      
>> merged into the kernel repository, so I merged show_page_info.py into the kernel
>> repository as well. Later, I found that merging into the drgn repository was    
>> also a good option, so I merged it into the drgn repository as well,            
>> and maintain it there. Therefore, I currently use show_page_info.py regularly   
>> and update it promptly if I find any issues.                                    
> 
> Seems we could remove the in-kernel version then? Besides better regression
> testing, I'd assume the scripts in drgn repository can also handle ranges of
> kernel versions and not the single one as of the given kernel commit (and
> often not really due to undiscovered breakages) which IMHO is much for
> useful for using these scripts and tools.
> 
There are many drgn-based tools in the kernel repository. Should they all be removed?   
Or should existing scripts be retained? Should new drgn scripts not be merged           
into the kernel repository in the future, but instead directly merged into the          
drgn repository? I think Omar Sandoval would be very willing to accept new drgn scripts.


-- 
Thanks,
Ye Liu