[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20071018155429.GA16244@flint.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 16:54:29 +0100
From: Russell King <rmk+lkml@....linux.org.uk>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@...driver.com>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/21] KGDB: Request to merge KGDB
On Thu, Oct 18, 2007 at 04:25:53PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 12:23:10AM +0900, Paul Mundt wrote:
> > It would also be nice to balance this out with the utrace merge, as both
> > are going to cause quite a lot of pain on the architecture side.
>
> I don't think a utrace merge as in one big merge is going to happen ever.
> It's just a too big patch doing too many things at once. And the flag day
> for switching all architectures over is another blocker.
I agree with Christoph - the fact that *all* architectures have to be
either ptrace or utrace make it very very painful.
What would be good is if some effort could be made by the utrace-
interested parties to make the transition to utrace much less painful.
For instance, I quite like the getregs/setregs abstractions, and it
looks like these *could* be self-contained in a single patch. It
would be nice if we could move architectures over to this one a time.
Once that's in, that's one chunk of utrace merged.
--
Russell King
Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
maintainer of:
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists