Re: ktap inclusion in drivers/staging/?
[Posted November 5, 2013 by corbet]
| From: |
| Steven Rostedt <rostedt-AT-goodmis.org> |
| To: |
| Ingo Molnar <mingo-AT-kernel.org> |
| Subject: |
| Re: ktap inclusion in drivers/staging/? |
| Date: |
| Thu, 24 Oct 2013 04:46:00 -0400 |
| Message-ID: |
| <1382604360.5283.9.camel@pippen.local.home> |
| Cc: |
| Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh-AT-linuxfoundation.org>, jovi.zhangwei-AT-huawei.com, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fr=E9d=E9ric?= Weisbecker <fweisbec-AT-gmail.com>, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra-AT-chello.nl>, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme-AT-infradead.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx-AT-linutronix.de>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds-AT-linux-foundation.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm-AT-linux-foundation.org>, linux-kernel-AT-vger.kernel.org, Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi-AT-linux.intel.com>, Namhyung Kim <namhyung-AT-kernel.org>, David Ahern <dsahern-AT-gmail.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa-AT-redhat.com> |
| Archive‑link: | |
Article |
On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 09:58 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Greg,
>
> I was surprised to see 'ktap' appear in the staging tree silently,
> via these commits that are visible in today's staging-next:
>
> 2c856b9e3e06 staging: ktap: remove unused <asm/syscall.h> header file
> 687b63a3bfd5 staging: ktap: update email name in MAINTAINERS
> c63a164271f8 staging: ktap: add to the kernel tree
>
> ktap is pretty fresh instrumentation code, announced on lkml a
> couple of months ago, and so far I haven't seen much technical
> discussion of integrating ktap upstream, mostly I suspect because
> not a _single_ patch was sent to linux-kernel for review. (!)
I feel I'm partially to blame. Jovi has sent us several emails to look
at his tree and I told him I would when I get time. What I should have
done was told him to break up the changes and send them out as a patch
series.
>
> An announcement of a Git tree was made (which Git tree is not very
> structured), and some very minimal discussion ensued, but no actual
> patches were sent with an intent to merge, no technical arguments
> were made in favor of merging and nothing conclusive was achieved.
Again, this may be partially our fault. We should have told Jovi to send
out the patches and a pointer to a git tree is not acceptable. Then we
could have had the necessary discussions required for this.
But I agree, this should not be just dumped into the staging tree until
the patches themselves have been posted and reviewed.
I'll have to NAK it too.
-- Steve
