Re: [RFC,PATCH 0/14] utrace/ptrace

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 11/26, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>
> What the patches in the current form do is to introduce two different
> ptrace implementations, with one used on the architectures getting most
> testing and another secondary one for left over embedded or dead
> architectures with horrible results.

Yes, nobody likes 2 implementations. I guess Roland and me hate
CONFIG_UTRACE much more than anybody else.

> So removing the old one is much
> better.

I am in no position to discuss this option. It is very easy to remove
the old code and break !HAVE_ARCH_TRACEHOOK architectures. Although
personally I am not sure this is practical.

If we merge utrace, perhaps we will get more attention from maintainers,
the old code will be "officially" deprecated/obsolete. I sent some
trivial initial changes in arch/um/ a long ago, the patch was silently
ignored.

Even if I was able to fix arch/xxx myself, I don't understand how can
I send the patches to maintainers until utrace is already merged in
-mm at least.

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/