Re: linux-next: add utrace tree
From: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
Date: Wed Jan 20 2010 - 01:40:42 EST
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 07:28:34AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 06:49:50AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > On the other hand, having ptrace/utrace in the -next tree will give it a
> > lot more testing, while any outstanding technical issues are being addressed.
> Including experimental code that is RFC and which is not certain to go
> upstream is certainly not the purpose of linux-next though.
> It will cause conflicts with various other trees and increases the overhead
> all around. It also causes us to trust linux-next bugreports less - as it's
> not the 'next Linux' anymore. Also, there's virtually no high-level technical
> review done in linux-next: the trees are implicitly trusted (because they are
> pushed by maintainers), bugs and conflicts are reported but otherwise it's a
> neutral tree that includes pretty much any commit indiscriminately.
> If you need review and testing there's a number of trees you can get inclusion
So would -tip be one of them? If so could you pull the utrace-ptrace
Or did you intend some other tree (random-tracing)? (Though I think a
ptrace reimplementation isn't 'random'-tracing :-))
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/