On Mon, 4 May 2009 12:43:48 -0700 (PDT) Roland McGrath <rol...@redhat.com> 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.
