Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1762579AbZCaQZi (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Mar 2009 12:25:38 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1761133AbZCaQZ3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Mar 2009 12:25:29 -0400 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([18.85.46.34]:56717 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756922AbZCaQZ3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Mar 2009 12:25:29 -0400 Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 12:25:04 -0400 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Andrew Morton , Theodore Tso , oleg@redhat.com, adobriyan@gmail.com, mingo@elte.hu, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, fche@redhat.com, roland@redhat.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, utrace-devel@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, Christoph Hellwig , Jeff Dike Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] utrace-based ftrace "process" engine, v2 Message-ID: <20090331162504.GA28442@infradead.org> References: <20090321154501.GA2707@elte.hu> <20090321143413.75ead1aa.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20090321215145.GB5262@redhat.com> <20090322123749.GF19826@elte.hu> <20090323134813.GA18219@x200.localdomain> <20090323151400.GA3413@redhat.com> <20090323214417.GD5814@mit.edu> <20090330151844.8b4eed0f.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <1238491062.28248.2046.camel@twins> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1238491062.28248.2046.camel@twins> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by bombadil.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 946 Lines: 21 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. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/