From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756329AbZEDTp2 (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 May 2009 15:45:28 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754157AbZEDTpS (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 May 2009 15:45:18 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:43594 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753848AbZEDTpQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 May 2009 15:45:16 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Roland McGrath To: Oleg Nesterov X-Fcc: ~/Mail/linus Cc: Andrew Morton , Jeff Dike , utrace-devel@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCH 0/2] utrace/ptrace: simplify/cleanup ptrace attach In-Reply-To: Oleg Nesterov's message of Monday, 4 May 2009 21:30:16 +0200 <20090504193016.GA17076@redhat.com> References: <20090503185537.GA17071@redhat.com> <20090504184951.623CEFC32F@magilla.sf.frob.com> <20090504193016.GA17076@redhat.com> X-Shopping-List: (1) Circular gravy (2) Reddy-Mix Enema commendations (3) Ingenious carnation exhibitions (4) Enchained pompous televangelists (5) Antagonistic avaricious frivolity propositions Message-Id: <20090504194348.BC0EBFC32F@magilla.sf.frob.com> Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 12:43:48 -0700 (PDT) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > 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