[ Adding John, as I only just realised he wasn't on CC and we were talking about him! ]
On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 10:59:01AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 03:53:34PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > > Em Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 10:06:53AM -0600, Mathieu Poirier escreveu: > > > The ARM SPE perf tools code is orphan and I don't have the cycles to > > > pick it up. Leo has spent a lot of time in that code and as such I > > > suggest that he starts maintaining it, probably following the same > > > kind of arrangement you and I have for coresight. > > > > Thats ok with me, I think we should reflect that on the MAINTAINERS > > file, right? > > > > We have this already: > > > > PERFORMANCE EVENTS SUBSYSTEM ARM64 PMU EVENTS > > R: John Garry <[email protected]> > > R: Will Deacon <[email protected]> > > L: [email protected] (moderated for non-subscribers) > > S: Supported > > F: tools/perf/pmu-events/arch/arm64/ > > > > I think we should have entries for CoreSight and ARM SPE, one listing > > you as the maintainer and the other listing Leo, right? > > Fine by me. I'll continue to maintain the in-kernel SPE driver, but I'd love > to see somebody step up to looking after the userspace code. It's seriously > unloved on arm64 :( > > I'd even be happy to see one or two M: entries added for > tools/perf/pmu-events/arch/arm64/. I realistically don't have the time to > take that on, but I'd be thrilled if any/all of John, Mathieu and Leo were > to be listed there if they are willing to do so and can spare the time to > look after it. Even just silly things like making sure the thing > cross-compiles have been broken in the recent past, so it's not necessarily > about handling huge amounts of incoming patches. > > In other words, rather than slice up the arm64 parts of the perf tool, I'd > argue in favour of a joint maintainership model for all the arm64 bits, if > we have a few willing volunteers. > > Will
