[PATCH 0/5] do_wait cleanupe (more to come)

[PATCH 0/5] do_wait cleanupe (more to come)

[Oleg Nesterov]

Slightly tested. Definitely this needs more testing, but since a) the
second patch was reviewed by Ingo and b) Andrew likes the buggy patches
very much, I am sending this series. At least I believe this all is
right "in general".

I was going to send more cleanups (siginfo/rusage filling), but it turns
out we race with Vitaly who has already started this work.

Vitaly, could you re-diff your (imho very nice) changes on top of this
series?

Oleg.

Re: [PATCH 0/5] do_wait cleanupe (more to come)

[Andrew Morton]

On Thu, 7 May 2009 08:46:30 +0200
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:

> Slightly tested. Definitely this needs more testing, but since a) the
> second patch was reviewed by Ingo and b) Andrew likes the buggy patches
> very much, I am sending this series. At least I believe this all is
> right "in general".

Worried.  This hits on ptrace and there's a lot of ptrace work pending,
including large changes which are threatening to come in via a different
tree (security).

If we end up with marginal/flakey patches in the middle of all of this,
a big mess ensues.

Re: [PATCH 0/5] do_wait cleanupe (more to come)

[Ingo Molnar]

* Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> On Thu, 7 May 2009 08:46:30 +0200
> Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > Slightly tested. Definitely this needs more testing, but since a) the
> > second patch was reviewed by Ingo and b) Andrew likes the buggy patches
> > very much, I am sending this series. At least I believe this all is
> > right "in general".
> 
> Worried.  This hits on ptrace and there's a lot of ptrace work 
> pending, including large changes which are threatening to come in 
> via a different tree (security).
> 
> If we end up with marginal/flakey patches in the middle of all of 
> this, a big mess ensues.

This problems would be solved if all these bits were in -mm.

	Ingo

Re: [PATCH 0/5] do_wait cleanupe (more to come)

[Andrew Morton]

On Mon, 11 May 2009 14:22:33 +0200
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:

> 
> * Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 7 May 2009 08:46:30 +0200
> > Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > Slightly tested. Definitely this needs more testing, but since a) the
> > > second patch was reviewed by Ingo and b) Andrew likes the buggy patches
> > > very much, I am sending this series. At least I believe this all is
> > > right "in general".
> > 
> > Worried.  This hits on ptrace and there's a lot of ptrace work 
> > pending, including large changes which are threatening to come in 
> > via a different tree (security).
> > 
> > If we end up with marginal/flakey patches in the middle of all of 
> > this, a big mess ensues.
> 
> This problems would be solved if all these bits were in -mm.
> 

I merged them, but that didn't solve the problem.  If more ptrace work
happens and then these patches turn out to be bad, we have a mess on
our hands.

IOW, merging "Slightly tested.  Definitely this needs more testing"
patches into an area on ongoing development is a bit risky.