From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Frank Ch. Eigler" Subject: Re: linux-next: add utrace tree Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 08:01:29 -0500 Message-ID: <20100120130129.GH16096@redhat.com> References: <20100119211646.GF16096@redhat.com> <20100120111220.e7fb4e2c.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20100120054950.GB27108@elte.hu> <20100120061551.GB6588@in.ibm.com> <20100120062834.GB12165@elte.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:57640 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753025Ab0ATNCy (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Jan 2010 08:02:54 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100120062834.GB12165@elte.hu> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli , Stephen Rothwell , Peter Zijlstra , Peter Zijlstra , Fr??d??ric Weisbecker , LKML , Steven Rostedt , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" , utrace-devel@redhat.com, Thomas Gleixner , Linus Hi - On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 07:28:34AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > [...] > > On the other hand, having ptrace/utrace in the -next tree will give it a > > lot more testing, while any outstanding technical issues are being addressed. > > Including experimental code that is RFC and which is not certain to go > upstream is certainly not the purpose of linux-next though. > [...] Ingo, you are mistaken. The utrace core and utrace/ptrace code were submitted and reviewed together on lkml, and are not considered experimental. I know the names may be confusing, but it is unnecessary to bring up uprobes and other RFC/experimental items. None of these are included in the branch I pointed sfr to. - FChE