Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 8 May 2009 17:08:41 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [RFC, PATCH 0/2] utrace/ptrace: simplify/cleanup ptrace attach |
| |
* Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com> wrote:
> > It is far more efficient if Roland, Oleg (or you, if you are > > interested in this stuff - which you seem to be) did RFC patches and > > asked for maintainer acks, than to depend on maintainers to do it. > > This has been on offer since the first user_regset stuff went into > 2.6.25, and I think I reiterated that on linux-arch when > CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_TRACEHOOK went in. > > What it does require is some arch person to at least show interest > in seeing the patches, test-build them and/or point to usable > cross compiler setups, etc. It doesn't have to be arch > maintainers, but someone at all who uses the arch and is prepared > to build kernels for it. > > In the case of arm, the fine Fedora/ARM folks had already made it > easy enough for me to do two web searches and find the cross > compilers, qemu settings, and system images I could get going > lickety-split without even asking anyone for pointers. But as hch > noted, even doing 95% of the work myself up front (built and > tested!) hasn't yet helped get any feedback. > > For any arch where there is anyone out there but the crickets, > it's easy for me to help with the actual code. I just need a > little direction on arch build setups and maybe some specific arch > details questions, and a little feedback. But where the only > people you can find who've heard of an arch say, "We haven't > looked what's upstream since 2.6.22 or so," I don't want to waste > my time on untried patches that will just go stale without ever > being compiled.
that's OK. If you went so far, if you were proactive and did due diligence, and nobody bothered, just push the changes into linux-next and there's no valid basis for future objections against those patches.
Ingo
| |