[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BANLkTinXfXa8+xUSPPy46uY0Rk1e6xdPLg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 08:04:28 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: oleg@...hat.com, jan.kratochvil@...hat.com,
vda.linux@...glemail.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, indan@....nu, bdonlan@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET ptrace] ptrace: implement PTRACE_SEIZE/INTERRUPT and
group stop notification, take#2
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> This is the second try at implementing PTRACE_SEIZE/INTERRUPT and
> group stop notification. Notable changes from the first take[1] are,
>
> * Prep patches moved to a separate patchset[2].
So having followed the discussion so far, quite frankly I'm not
convinced this series is 2.6.40 material.
I think that conceptually the split-up of PTRACE_ATTACH into
SEIZE/INTERRUPT might be fine, but I don't think the interface is
necessarily cooked, and perhaps more importantly I'm not at all sure
that the (few) current users of ptrace() would even switch over.
So I think Oleg's branch with cleanups is probably ready, and maybe a
few of the preparatory patches from this branch can be merged, but I
would _strongly_ suggest that the plan for 2.6.40 should be to not
actually mess with interfaces to the kernel, but just cleaning up the
actual internal implementation. I would like to keep 2.6.40 small and
simple.
Comments?
Linus
--
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