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

[Roland McGrath]

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

Indeed.

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

Oh, -mm.  I had not thought about the -mm patch merge order.  I just look
at the whole ptrace-related series from you as an independent series on top
of Linus -current, preceding anything else related.

> > 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.

I guess we should take Andrew's advice on this.  To me, it makes most sense
just to order the -mm patches so utrace comes later, and replace the utrace
patch as necessary with a compatible version.  Perhaps things would be
simpler if we made a separate standalone series or git tree (tip/ptrace?)
for ptrace cleanups.


Thanks,
Roland
--
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/