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

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 05/04, Roland McGrath wrote:
>
> I guess I'm slightly confused.

Me too ;)

> We want to merge all of the "pure" ptrace
> cleanup patches before any utrace patch.

Yes, exactly!

The second patch "ptrace: do not use task_lock() for attach" has nothing
to do with utrace, and it is really pure ptrace cleanup.

But it can't be applied to -mm tree, because it (textually) conficts with
utrace changes in ptrace_attach().

> When those are on their way,
> we'll update the utrace patches not to conflict.  I don't think it makes
> sense to include utrace.patch's little ptrace.c change in the baseline tree
> for your ptrace cleanup patches.

Yes, but in this case, how can we push it before utrace-core.patch ?

The first patch is only for -mm, to avoid the painful dependencies.


Since you seem to mostly agree with the second patch, what should I do?

Oleg.

--
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/