From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S268476AbUHaNWh (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Aug 2004 09:22:37 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S268472AbUHaNWZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Aug 2004 09:22:25 -0400 Received: from mail.parknet.co.jp ([210.171.160.6]:49679 "EHLO mail.parknet.co.jp") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S268473AbUHaNTT (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Aug 2004 09:19:19 -0400 To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Roland McGrath , Andrew Morton , Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH] cleanup ptrace stops and remove notify_parent References: <200408310411.i7V4B8Vs027772@magilla.sf.frob.com> From: OGAWA Hirofumi Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 22:19:04 +0900 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <87k6vfqwc7.fsf@devron.myhome.or.jp> User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3.50 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Linus Torvalds writes: > Ok, I definitely agree with the approach I agree with that approach. > Looks pretty clean as an implementation. The question is whether we should > aim for 2.6.9 or 2.6.10 - if the first, then I should probably take it > now, otherwise it should go into -mm first and be merged early after 2.6.9 > has been released, for the first -rc. > > I _looks_ pretty safe, and it's hopefully much less likely to have subtle > bugs and races than our old approach had, but I have a hard time judging. Ptrace has several ugly things. And I'm thinking those needs user-visible change more or less to improve, like this. (->parent/wait4/child_list, PTRACE_SYSCALL/PTRACE_SINGLESTEP ...) Should we also clean up and improve those with user-visible change? Those should be thought as separate issue? I think we should be improved with new interface... (after it, we can deprecate ptrace) -- OGAWA Hirofumi