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

[Andrew Morton]

On Mon,  4 May 2009 12:43:48 -0700 (PDT)
Roland McGrath <roland@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > > 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.

Staging the utrace patch at end-of-series would make sense if utrace is
not on track for a 2.6.31 merge.

And afaict, this is indeed the case - things seem to have gone a bit
quiet on the utrace front lately.

--
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/