Re: [PATCH 3/3] utrace-based ftrace "process" engine, v2

From: Christoph Hellwig
Date: Tue Mar 31 2009 - 12:25:39 EST


On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 11:17:42AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Could those who object to utrace please pipe up and summarise their
> > reasons?
>
> Christoph used to have an opinion on this matter, so I've added him to
> the CC.

I've never objected utrace per see, quite contrary I think it's a useful
abstraction. I did have objection over various implementation details
which should be sorted out now (have to take a look again to make sure).

I do have a really large objection of merging the current messy double
ptrace implementation. If current utrace based ptrace isn't 100% ready
there's absolutely no point in merging it. Other user would be even
better, e.g. the seccomp rewrite.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/