Re: [RFC, PATCH 0/2] utrace/ptrace: simplify/cleanup ptrace attach

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com> wrote:

> > It is far more efficient if Roland, Oleg (or you, if you are 
> > interested in this stuff - which you seem to be) did RFC patches and 
> > asked for maintainer acks, than to depend on maintainers to do it.
> 
> This has been on offer since the first user_regset stuff went into 
> 2.6.25, and I think I reiterated that on linux-arch when 
> CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_TRACEHOOK went in.
> 
> What it does require is some arch person to at least show interest 
> in seeing the patches, test-build them and/or point to usable 
> cross compiler setups, etc.  It doesn't have to be arch 
> maintainers, but someone at all who uses the arch and is prepared 
> to build kernels for it.
> 
> In the case of arm, the fine Fedora/ARM folks had already made it 
> easy enough for me to do two web searches and find the cross 
> compilers, qemu settings, and system images I could get going 
> lickety-split without even asking anyone for pointers.  But as hch 
> noted, even doing 95% of the work myself up front (built and 
> tested!) hasn't yet helped get any feedback.
> 
> For any arch where there is anyone out there but the crickets, 
> it's easy for me to help with the actual code.  I just need a 
> little direction on arch build setups and maybe some specific arch 
> details questions, and a little feedback.  But where the only 
> people you can find who've heard of an arch say, "We haven't 
> looked what's upstream since 2.6.22 or so," I don't want to waste 
> my time on untried patches that will just go stale without ever 
> being compiled.

that's OK. If you went so far, if you were proactive and did due 
diligence, and nobody bothered, just push the changes into 
linux-next and there's no valid basis for future objections against 
those patches.

	Ingo