From: "Steven Rostedt (Google)" <rostedt@goodmis.org>

After being merged, user_events become more visible to a wider audience
that have concerns with the current API. It is too late to fix this for
this release, but instead of a full revert, just mark it as BROKEN (which
prevents it from being selected in make config). Then we can work finding
a better API. If that fails, then it will need to be completely reverted.

Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/2059213643.196683.1648499088753.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com/

Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt (Google) <rostedt@goodmis.org>
---
Changes since v1: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220329222514.51af6c07@gandalf.local.home/
 - Add depends on COMPILE_TEST too (Linus Torvalds)

 Hopefully, no distro is idiotic enough to enable COMPILE_TEST in their
 builds to get this feature.

 kernel/trace/Kconfig | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/kernel/trace/Kconfig b/kernel/trace/Kconfig
index 16a52a71732d..f83d29adb375 100644
--- a/kernel/trace/Kconfig
+++ b/kernel/trace/Kconfig
@@ -741,6 +741,7 @@ config USER_EVENTS
 	bool "User trace events"
 	select TRACING
 	select DYNAMIC_EVENTS
+	depends on BROKEN || COMPILE_TEST # API needs to be straighten out
 	help
 	  User trace events are user-defined trace events that
 	  can be used like an existing kernel trace event.  User trace
-- 
2.35.1

On Wed, 30 Mar 2022 15:58:35 -0400
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:

> From: "Steven Rostedt (Google)" <rostedt@goodmis.org>
> 
> After being merged, user_events become more visible to a wider audience
> that have concerns with the current API. It is too late to fix this for
> this release, but instead of a full revert, just mark it as BROKEN (which
> prevents it from being selected in make config). Then we can work finding
> a better API. If that fails, then it will need to be completely reverted.
> 
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/2059213643.196683.1648499088753.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com/
> 
> Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt (Google) <rostedt@goodmis.org>

Linus,

I noticed that you pulled in this patch (slightly updated subject). I
had it part of my queue that was going thought my tests, which have
just finished. I was going to send you a pull request today.

Is it OK that I keep that patch? Otherwise, I need to pull it out and
rerun my tests without it.

I would have had this to you earlier but because of the merge
conflicts of my last pull request that this queue depended on, I based
all my new changes off of the merge commit you had made with my
previous pull request, and that contained bugs that would prevent my
tests from passing (as you saw with the one memory mapping issue).

I'll go ahead and send you the pull request that I have that contains
this patch as well, but feel free to reject it if you want me to redo
my queue without it.

-- Steve