Re: [PATCH v5 2/3] perf lock: Add percpu-rwsem for type filter

[Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>]

On Thu, Dec 12, 2024 at 04:00:40PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 11:15:34AM -0800, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 12:08:21PM -0800, Chun-Tse Shao wrote:
> > > percpu-rwsem was missing in man page. And for backward compatibility,
> > > replace `pcpu-sem` with `percpu-rwsem` before parsing lock name.
> > > Tested `./perf lock con -ab -Y pcpu-sem` and `./perf lock con -ab -Y
> > > percpu-rwsem`
> 
> > > Fixes: 4f701063bfa2 ("perf lock contention: Show lock type with address")
> > > Signed-off-by: Chun-Tse Shao <ctshao@google.com>
> 
> > Reviewed-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
> 
> Here the reviewer can also add info about where this should go, i.e.
> this is a fix, has a Fixes tag, but then there is extra work for
> maintainers to do: Is this a regression introduced in this merge window?
> Should this go to urgent or next? If the submitter adds this, it helps,
> if the reviewer agrees, even better, otherwise emit an opinion where it
> should go.
> 
> In this specific case:
> 
> ⬢ [acme@toolbox perf-tools-next]$ git tag --contains 4f701063bfa2 | grep ^v[56] | grep -v -- -rc
> v6.10
> v6.11
> v6.12
> v6.4
> v6.5
> v6.6
> v6.7
> v6.8
> v6.9
> ⬢ [acme@toolbox perf-tools-next]$
> 
> Looks something its there for quite a while, so probably can go to
> perf-tools-next?

Yeah, I think it should be ok to go to perf-tools-next.

Thanks,
Namhyung