From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AE81035A395 for ; Sun, 11 Oct 2026 19:53:50 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1791748431; cv=none; b=HqKd0e5cf87oh/vu9sUR7LHqsGVuiQS/Zylh4wp0U04kQ897F3YECe4GiRsa8jno02zXeEAreKqVB/AV7ihaHUwn0nicXCnIUkl/kPVf60MyJeUOuuE08WDVYDk4rR8zPO11sbp31VryGEXqDt6zMnwImtzW8/Tha4rzWSMDbvc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1791748431; c=relaxed/simple; bh=hR6fkr+G7ozhUs1W9jG2uzvn8dPAfvPpz+lAvj734CU=; h=Message-ID:From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type: Date; b=VxHqW0IxIj3ZWs3Vh4CnKAV6Ib/JNpHD7X3fObebQqnOInqZXVhUf9/uALGJxyw9sF9Cee4yAWG3ZsCXvg2uCUPmhI6MsVnBN5yvcFAYOwVa6S2egf9Txhlf6OyF3Ez5+jlxIqj+u+MrRQ9X7YDncbH0t9ImdQBTHMiql0jf9S0= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=ex6EFbpH; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="ex6EFbpH" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 394141F0089B; Sun, 11 Oct 2026 19:53:50 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1791748430; bh=3vCL6FGGgK0+DHK7FSrgEkxYg/Jc2pCK8YLiP8nZfKU=; h=From:Subject:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=ex6EFbpH7Ht2pvyIGlutdtN1r42qBbxh9Hi+REDRa8/DD7rjfMxdosMNFKQC/iHso A69YToy3eJ+1A4FZ3vgdfykRytS5BTpKzYGKNNgKwU9gDRtdLGiNYlcSAYoR5THo5T b9pqnh2UKZNvLhzVYE1HWBWbIJHlYD1JdWYw+WtXlsUDPSMuBHkqYWSMGPXtghCYwV L43TJ3tN6ZdmXnHpEJ4q7NfGfe3Sj+D2tVXvSzfplT0XLQ3dAZJ21RGNUhPC9gkgoN ZhSem70ncrYYdReS+sgoWwrKfnlulw9cONSALZj5EfSbH8eMNFD2EYoUJsflrEDm89 mEzKtSSHO2Zog== Message-ID: From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 06/14] rv: Make da_monitor_reset_hook and EVENT_NONE_LBL overridable Reply-To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev To: wen.yang@linux.dev Cc: linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2026 19:53:49 +0000 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(= s) to consider: - [Medium] rv: undocumented API change making da_monitor_sync_hook overrida= ble -- commit 4c23c506287e928a0c126474d4bfba46c2216f6b Author: Wen Yang rv: Make da_monitor_reset_hook and EVENT_NONE_LBL overridable This commit adds #ifndef guards around da_monitor_reset_hook and EVENT_NONE_LBL in ha_monitor.h. This allows HA-based monitors to override these definitions with their own implementations before including the heade= r, such as cancelling per-task hrtimers on teardown. > diff --git a/include/rv/ha_monitor.h b/include/rv/ha_monitor.h > index 99b60d0d26b6d..b8c74d4d40649 100644 > --- a/include/rv/ha_monitor.h > +++ b/include/rv/ha_monitor.h > @@ -38,8 +38,14 @@ static bool ha_monitor_handle_constraint(struct da_mon= itor *da_mon, > da_id_type id); > #define da_monitor_event_hook ha_monitor_handle_constraint > #define da_monitor_init_hook ha_monitor_init_env > + > +/* Overrides must still call ha_monitor_reset_env() or cancel the timer.= */ > +#ifndef da_monitor_reset_hook > #define da_monitor_reset_hook ha_monitor_reset_env > +#endif > +#ifndef da_monitor_sync_hook > #define da_monitor_sync_hook() synchronize_rcu() > +#endif [Severity: Medium] The commit message explicitly claims to "Make da_monitor_reset_hook and EVENT_NONE_LBL overridable" and mentions wrapping "both definitions". However, this change also wraps a third macro, da_monitor_sync_hook, making it overridable as well. Was this third API change intentional? If so, could the commit message be updated to mention it? --=20 Sashiko AI review =C2=B7 https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/cover.1791745088.gi= t.wen.yang@linux.dev?part=3D6