From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Frank Ch. Eigler" Subject: Re: linux-next: add utrace tree Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 12:02:54 -0500 Message-ID: <20100125170254.GB22862@redhat.com> References: <20100122221348.GA4263@redhat.com> <20100123112333.GA15455@elte.hu> <20100123114729.GA7828@redhat.com> <20100123194820.GM21263@thunk.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:52707 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754122Ab0AYREW (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Jan 2010 12:04:22 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Kyle Moffett , tytso@mit.edu, Ingo Molnar , Oleg Nesterov , Andrew Morton , 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 Hi - On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 08:52:41AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > [...] If somebody extended ptrace in good ways, that's a totally > different thing. But I think utrace has been over-designed, possibly > as a result of others coming in and saying "hey, I'd like to use > that too for xyz". [...] Earlier, you said that you haven't followed utrace "at all". Upon what real information do you infer that it has been over-designed? - FChE