[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091129085957.GF1530@ucw.cz>
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 09:59:58 +0100
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
Ananth Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
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 Wed 2009-11-25 16:48:18, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 09:01:27PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > Hello.
> >
> > This is the new iteration of Roland's utrace patch, this time
> > with "rewrite-ptrace-via-utrace" + cleanups in utrace core.
> >
> > 1-7 are already in -mm tree, I am sending them to simplify the
> > review.
> >
> > 8-12 don not change the behaviour, simple preparations.
> >
> > 13-14 add utrace-ptrace and utrace
>
> Skipped over it very, very briefly. One thing I really hate about this
> is that it introduces two ptrace implementation by adding the new one
> without removing the old one. Given that's it's pretty much too later
> for the 2.6.33 cycle anyway I'd suggest you make sure the remaining
> two major architectures (arm and mips) get converted, and if the
> remaining minor architectures don't manage to get their homework done
> they're left without ptrace.
I don't think introducing regressions to force people to rewrite code
is a good way to go...
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
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