* Oleg Nesterov <o...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 05/04, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 4 May 2009 12:43:48 -0700 (PDT)
> > Roland McGrath <rol...@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > > 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.
>
> The only goal of current ptrace cleanups is to simplify the
> "ptrace over utrace" change (hopefully they make sense by
> themselves though).
>
> I am obviously biased, but imho the only real problem with
> utrace-ptrace.patch is the current ptrace code which needs
> cleanups.
Yes. But realize the fundamental reason for that: _without_
ptrace-over-utrace the utrace core code is a big chunk of dead code
only used on the fringes. I see and agree with all the future uses
of utrace, but it's easy to be problem-free if a facility is not
used by anything significant.
So a clean ptrace-over-utrace plugin is absolutely needed for utrace
to go upstream in v2.6.31. The ftrace plugin alone does not justify
it. The real prize here is a (much!) cleaner ptrace code. Once
ptrace is driven via utrace and it works, its value (and trust
level) will skyrocket.
Ingo
