From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754922AbbG3BuP (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Jul 2015 21:50:15 -0400 Received: from mail-pa0-f45.google.com ([209.85.220.45]:35283 "EHLO mail-pa0-f45.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754875AbbG3BuM (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Jul 2015 21:50:12 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/4] bpf: Introduce the new ability of eBPF programs to access hardware PMU counter To: Daniel Borkmann , Kaixu Xia , davem@davemloft.net, acme@kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com, a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl, masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com, jolsa@kernel.org References: <1438082255-60683-1-git-send-email-xiakaixu@huawei.com> <55B96B0A.2090003@iogearbox.net> Cc: wangnan0@huawei.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, pi3orama@163.com, hekuang@huawei.com From: Alexei Starovoitov Message-ID: <55B982D1.3070808@plumgrid.com> Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 18:50:09 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <55B96B0A.2090003@iogearbox.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 7/29/15 5:08 PM, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > On 07/28/2015 01:17 PM, Kaixu Xia wrote: >> Previous patch v3 url: >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/7/23/203 > ... >> Kaixu Xia (3): >> bpf: Add new bpf map type to store the pointer to struct perf_event >> bpf: Implement function bpf_perf_event_read() that get the selected >> hardware PMU conuter >> samples/bpf: example of get selected PMU counter value >> >> Wang Nan (1): >> bpf: Make the bpf_prog_array_map more generic > > So kernel/bpf/ patches are usually going via netdev tree as main > development > happens there and to avoid cross tree conflicts, etc. Thus, please Cc also > netdev in the next iterations. > > Maybe when these patches are in a perfect shape at some point, perf folks > provide their Acked-by(s) to the series to give their consent, and then > this > should go via net-next? Or will this be organized differently? In this case it looks that amount of kernel/bpf/ changes is higher than perf related. Also it looks like addition of bpf_perf_event_read() helper also won't affect anything on perf side, so in this case I think net-next tree is indeed a better fit.