[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090504194348.BC0EBFC32F@magilla.sf.frob.com>
Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 12:43:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jeff Dike <jdike@...toit.com>, utrace-devel@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCH 0/2] utrace/ptrace: simplify/cleanup ptrace attach
> The second patch "ptrace: do not use task_lock() for attach" has nothing
> to do with utrace, and it is really pure ptrace cleanup.
Indeed.
> But it can't be applied to -mm tree, because it (textually) conficts with
> utrace changes in ptrace_attach().
Oh, -mm. I had not thought about the -mm patch merge order. I just look
at the whole ptrace-related series from you as an independent series on top
of Linus -current, preceding anything else related.
> > When those are on their way,
> > we'll update the utrace patches not to conflict. I don't think it makes
> > sense to include utrace.patch's little ptrace.c change in the baseline tree
> > for your ptrace cleanup patches.
>
> Yes, but in this case, how can we push it before utrace-core.patch ?
>
> The first patch is only for -mm, to avoid the painful dependencies.
I guess we should take Andrew's advice on this. To me, it makes most sense
just to order the -mm patches so utrace comes later, and replace the utrace
patch as necessary with a compatible version. Perhaps things would be
simpler if we made a separate standalone series or git tree (tip/ptrace?)
for ptrace cleanups.
Thanks,
Roland
--
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