Re: [PATCH 0/2] utrace

[Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>]

On Wed, Sep 03, 2008 at 05:09:27AM -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
> I have spent a lot of time keeping the patch series up to date,
> rebasing, etc.  This has sunk all the time that I'd like to have been
> spending working on higher-level pieces such as the ntrace idea.
> 
> (This will be much better now that all the tracehook work is in 2.6.27.
> I know you don't buy the rationale I've explained for that work.  But I
> am confident that having this in is a substantial and immediate boon to
> the ease and efficiency of getting more work done sooner in this area.)

Yes, now you've got all the lowlevel bits in that should have been
long time ago :)  And you don;t have to rebase it all the time if you
don't have time for it.  Keep developing ntrace on one major release and
then you can forward-port the whole bunch at once less frequently.

> At the same time, many of the people who have asked me about the state
> of the effort say things to the effect that they would like to try
> writing some features based on such an API once it's been merged in.

Then the people should help with the upstream process, post their bits
to lkml, help you with forward-porting, etc.