On Tue, Jul 29, 2025 at 09:53:47PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Tue, Jul 29 2025 at 13:14, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 23, 2025 at 02:46:44PM +0000, Pasha Tatashin wrote: > >> From: Pratyush Yadav <ptyadav@xxxxxxxxx> > >> tools/lib/luo/Makefile | 6 +- > >> tools/lib/luo/cli/.gitignore | 1 + > >> tools/lib/luo/cli/Makefile | 18 ++++ > >> tools/lib/luo/cli/luoctl.c | 178 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >> 4 files changed, 202 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > >> create mode 100644 tools/lib/luo/cli/.gitignore > >> create mode 100644 tools/lib/luo/cli/Makefile > >> create mode 100644 tools/lib/luo/cli/luoctl.c > > > > In the calls I thought the plan had changed to put libluo in its own > > repository? > > > > There is nothing tightly linked to the kernel here, I think it would > > be easier on everyone to not add ordinary libraries to the kernel > > tree. > > As this is an evolving mechanism, having the corresponding library in > the kernel similar to what we do with perf and other things makes a lot > of sense. If we did this everywhere we'd have hundreds of libraries in the kernel tree and I would feel bad for all the distros that have to deal with packaging such a thing :( It is great for development but I'm not sure mono-repo directions are so good for the overall ecosystem. I understood perf had a special reason to be in the kernel tree? I don't think there is any special here beyond it is new. Jason
