From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758648AbZEKSjI (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 May 2009 14:39:08 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752782AbZEKSiz (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 May 2009 14:38:55 -0400 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:53760 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752260AbZEKSiy (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 May 2009 14:38:54 -0400 Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 11:35:05 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Ingo Molnar Cc: oleg@redhat.com, roland@redhat.com, vmayatsk@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] do_wait cleanupe (more to come) Message-Id: <20090511113505.ca9384af.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20090511122233.GE13954@elte.hu> References: <20090507064630.GA15847@redhat.com> <20090507131234.adf90d1b.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20090511122233.GE13954@elte.hu> 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, 11 May 2009 14:22:33 +0200 Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Andrew Morton wrote: > > > On Thu, 7 May 2009 08:46:30 +0200 > > Oleg Nesterov 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.