Re: [RFC PATCH 00/20] rv: Add support for BPF monitors

On Fri Sep 4, 2026 at 4:43 AM PDT, Steven Rostedt wrote:

On Thu, 3 Sep 2026 20:30:19 -0700
Alexei Starovoitov [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

On Wed, 2026-09-02 at 18:57 -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:  

quoted

I don't think bpf fits here. I haven't seen active use of RV and even less
so of any request from people who want this kind of programmability.

So Nack for now. Sorry.  

quoted

Ok.
Please add
Nacked-by: Alexei Starovoitov [off-list ref]

when you submit it to Linus.
Let him decide whether bpf maintainers have an authority
to say where bpf is used in the kernel.

When this is ready, I'll be happy to inform Linus on the pull request
that you NACKed it, if you are still against it by then. He's Cc'd on
this conversation now. But you left out any technical reason for the
NACK. You basically just said "I don't see how this is useful to me".
That's not a valid reason for a NACK.

You added a whole bunch of hardcoded "monitors". None of them were
necessary. The whole RV is imo a waste of kernel code.
All of that could have been done via existing bpf tracing functionality.
One can delete kernel/trace/rv and do the same thing with bpf.
So I'm strongly against bolting bpf to RV as yet another "monitor".
It's a wrong design. Keep adding hard coded monitors and don't mess
with bpf.

Gabriele will be presenting this work at Linux Plumbers[1]. This will

I didn't vote for it. Other bpf maintainers did. Hence it's in schedule.
But my stance is still a nack.