lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Mar]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/3] utrace-based ftrace "process" engine, v2
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 11:17:42AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Could those who object to utrace please pipe up and summarise their
> > reasons?
>
> Christoph used to have an opinion on this matter, so I've added him to
> the CC.

I've never objected utrace per see, quite contrary I think it's a useful
abstraction. I did have objection over various implementation details
which should be sorted out now (have to take a look again to make sure).

I do have a really large objection of merging the current messy double
ptrace implementation. If current utrace based ptrace isn't 100% ready
there's absolutely no point in merging it. Other user would be even
better, e.g. the seccomp rewrite.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-03-31 18:27    [W:0.110 / U:0.024 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site