From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754858AbZEDTfN (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 May 2009 15:35:13 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753858AbZEDTe6 (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 May 2009 15:34:58 -0400 Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:44202 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753644AbZEDTe5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 May 2009 15:34:57 -0400 Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 21:30:16 +0200 From: Oleg Nesterov To: Roland McGrath Cc: Andrew Morton , Jeff Dike , utrace-devel@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCH 0/2] utrace/ptrace: simplify/cleanup ptrace attach Message-ID: <20090504193016.GA17076@redhat.com> References: <20090503185537.GA17071@redhat.com> <20090504184951.623CEFC32F@magilla.sf.frob.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090504184951.623CEFC32F@magilla.sf.frob.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 05/04, Roland McGrath wrote: > > I guess I'm slightly confused. Me too ;) > We want to merge all of the "pure" ptrace > cleanup patches before any utrace patch. Yes, exactly! The second patch "ptrace: do not use task_lock() for attach" has nothing to do with utrace, and it is really pure ptrace cleanup. But it can't be applied to -mm tree, because it (textually) conficts with utrace changes in ptrace_attach(). > 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. Since you seem to mostly agree with the second patch, what should I do? Oleg.