From: Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: oleg@redhat.com, jdike@addtoit.com, utrace-devel@redhat.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCH 0/2] utrace/ptrace: simplify/cleanup ptrace attach
Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 18:12:44 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090505011244.2BAE1FC2BD@magilla.sf.frob.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: Andrew Morton's message of Monday, 4 May 2009 16:31:54 -0700 <20090504163154.f3672a83.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
> Staging the utrace patch at end-of-series would make sense if utrace is
> not on track for a 2.6.31 merge.
>
> And afaict, this is indeed the case - things seem to have gone a bit
> quiet on the utrace front lately.
I don't think that is really accurate. There has been a lack of any
reviewer comments on the actual content of the utrace patch (aside from
Oleg's own), which is indeed quieter on that front than I had expected.
The comments we did get, e.g. from hch, were that a compelling user of the
API should go in, such as converting ptrace. Oleg's current ptrace revamp
work will culminate in replacing its innards with utrace calls. It's my
hope that all this work will be ready in time for 2.6.31.
The reason the utrace patch should appear later in the series is that the
bulk of the ptrace cleanup series (including all patches done so far) will
not depend on utrace at all and will be mergeable independent of the fate
of utrace or that of any later utrace-dependent ptrace patches. We expect
the utrace patch will get more updates that we hash out in the course of
the ptrace work. That being so, it makes more sense (to me) to plan to
replace it later before merge time rather than include the old patch
earlier in the series and have other patches (including ones unrelated to
it) need to do incremental updates relative to it.
Thanks,
Roland
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-05-05 1:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-05-03 18:55 Oleg Nesterov
2009-05-04 18:49 ` Roland McGrath
2009-05-04 19:30 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-05-04 19:43 ` Roland McGrath
2009-05-04 23:31 ` Andrew Morton
2009-05-05 1:12 ` Roland McGrath [this message]
2009-05-05 23:06 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-05-06 8:12 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-05-06 8:23 ` Christoph Hellwig
2009-05-06 9:05 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-05-06 9:11 ` Christoph Hellwig
2009-05-06 9:37 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-05-07 6:13 ` Roland McGrath
2009-05-08 15:08 ` Ingo Molnar
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20090505011244.2BAE1FC2BD@magilla.sf.frob.com \
--to=roland@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=jdike@addtoit.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=utrace-devel@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®