From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757390AbZEDXf2 (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 May 2009 19:35:28 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754984AbZEDXfL (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 May 2009 19:35:11 -0400 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:51818 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754710AbZEDXfK (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 May 2009 19:35:10 -0400 Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 16:31:54 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Roland McGrath Cc: oleg@redhat.com, jdike@addtoit.com, utrace-devel@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCH 0/2] utrace/ptrace: simplify/cleanup ptrace attach Message-Id: <20090504163154.f3672a83.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20090504194348.BC0EBFC32F@magilla.sf.frob.com> References: <20090503185537.GA17071@redhat.com> <20090504184951.623CEFC32F@magilla.sf.frob.com> <20090504193016.GA17076@redhat.com> <20090504194348.BC0EBFC32F@magilla.sf.frob.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.4 (GTK+ 2.8.20; i486-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 4 May 2009 12:43:48 -0700 (PDT) Roland McGrath wrote: > > > When those are on their way, > > > we'll update the utrace patches not to conflict. I don't think it makes > > > sense to include utrace.patch's little ptrace.c change in the baseline tree > > > for your ptrace cleanup patches. > > > > Yes, but in this case, how can we push it before utrace-core.patch ? > > > > The first patch is only for -mm, to avoid the painful dependencies. > > 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.