From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752449AbdATQzF (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Jan 2017 11:55:05 -0500 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([65.50.211.133]:35312 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752012AbdATQym (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Jan 2017 11:54:42 -0500 Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2017 17:54:07 +0100 From: Peter Zijlstra To: Hari Bathini Cc: ast@fb.com, lkml , acme@kernel.org, alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com, mingo@redhat.com, daniel@iogearbox.net, rostedt@goodmis.org, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli , ebiederm@xmission.com, sargun@sargun.me, Aravinda Prasad , brendan.d.gregg@gmail.com, jolsa@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] perf: add PERF_RECORD_NAMESPACES to include namespaces related info Message-ID: <20170120165407.GS6485@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <148466259095.32153.10361763951552633449.stgit@hbathini.in.ibm.com> <148466262903.32153.14129217679474433212.stgit@hbathini.in.ibm.com> <20170118142608.GF6515@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <4019acf2-357d-af5d-a44c-414128e3033c@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4019acf2-357d-af5d-a44c-414128e3033c@linux.vnet.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23.1 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 09:26:32PM +0530, Hari Bathini wrote: > Hi Peter, > > > On Wednesday 18 January 2017 07:56 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > >On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 07:47:22PM +0530, Hari Bathini wrote: > >>With the advert of container technologies like docker, that depend > >>on namespaces for isolation, there is a need for tracing support for > >>namespaces. This patch introduces new PERF_RECORD_NAMESPACES event > >>for tracing based on namespaces related info. > >This fails to mention the whole namespace of namespaces issue Eric > > IIUC, Eric wanted to have device info saved for each namespace separately > to avoid the need for a namespace of namespaces in future. > > >brought up. Where are we on that, and or why isn't it required? > > > I did address that in v4 and haven't changed it in v5. > I am not sure if it needs any mentioning in the changelog.. I would certainly have liked mention of the issue and its (non) solution. It shows we thought about it and will help our older selves remember.