[lkml]   [2010]   [Jan]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: linux-next: add utrace tree
    On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 19:51:47 -0500 "Frank Ch. Eigler" <> wrote:

    > Hi -
    > On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 04:31:45PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
    > > [...]
    > > > Someone please sell this to us.
    > > Here's what Oleg said last time I asked this: [...]
    > I wonder if Roland/Oleg are being too modest in their current role as
    > ptrace maintainers. Considering that *they* think of utrace as a
    > means toward proper refactoring of ptrace, how much further burden of
    > proof should they shoulder? To what extent are other subsystem
    > maintainers required to "sell" reworkings of their areas, when there
    > appear to be no drawbacks and at least arguable benefits?

    ptrace is a nasty, complex part of the kernel which has a long history
    of problems, but it's all been pretty quiet in there for the the past few
    years. This leads one to expect that a rip-out-n-rewrite is a
    high-risk prospect. So, quite reasonably, one looks for a good reason
    for taking such risk.

    It's not really appropriate to generalise from other subsystem
    maintainer's reworkings onto ptrace. It's very rare that we'd make a
    change this radical to a tricky part of core kernel.

     \ /
      Last update: 2010-01-22 02:09    [W:0.021 / U:10.332 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site