On Tue, Jul 29, 2025 at 09:53:47PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:

On Tue, Jul 29 2025 at 13:14, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Jul 23, 2025 at 02:46:44PM +0000, Pasha Tatashin wrote:

quoted

From: Pratyush Yadav <redacted>
 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