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

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 05/04, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> On Mon,  4 May 2009 12:43:48 -0700 (PDT)
> Roland McGrath <roland@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > 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.

The only goal of current ptrace cleanups is to simplify the "ptrace over
utrace" change (hopefully they make sense by themselves though).

I am obviously biased, but imho the only real problem with utrace-ptrace.patch
is the current ptrace code which needs cleanups.

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/