[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091126142745.GA4382@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 15:27:45 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
Ananth Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, utrace-devel@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC,PATCH 0/14] utrace/ptrace
On 11/26, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>
> What the patches in the current form do is to introduce two different
> ptrace implementations, with one used on the architectures getting most
> testing and another secondary one for left over embedded or dead
> architectures with horrible results.
Yes, nobody likes 2 implementations. I guess Roland and me hate
CONFIG_UTRACE much more than anybody else.
> So removing the old one is much
> better.
I am in no position to discuss this option. It is very easy to remove
the old code and break !HAVE_ARCH_TRACEHOOK architectures. Although
personally I am not sure this is practical.
If we merge utrace, perhaps we will get more attention from maintainers,
the old code will be "officially" deprecated/obsolete. I sent some
trivial initial changes in arch/um/ a long ago, the patch was silently
ignored.
Even if I was able to fix arch/xxx myself, I don't understand how can
I send the patches to maintainers until utrace is already merged in
-mm at least.
Oleg.
--
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