Re: linux-next: add utrace tree
[Posted January 27, 2010 by jake]
| From: |
| Andrew Morton <akpm-AT-linux-foundation.org> |
| To: |
| Stephen Rothwell <sfr-AT-canb.auug.org.au> |
| Subject: |
| Re: linux-next: add utrace tree |
| Date: |
| Thu, 21 Jan 2010 16:30:04 -0800 |
| Cc: |
| Ingo Molnar <mingo-AT-elte.hu>,
Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth-AT-in.ibm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra-AT-chello.nl>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz-AT-infradead.org>,
Fr??d??ric Weisbecker <fweisbec-AT-gmail.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel-AT-vger.kernel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt-AT-goodmis.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme-AT-redhat.com>,
"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche-AT-redhat.com>, linux-next-AT-vger.kernel.org,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa-AT-zytor.com>, utrace-devel-AT-redhat.com,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx-AT-linutronix.de>,
Linus <torvalds-AT-linux-foundation.org> |
| Archive-link: |
| Article, Thread
|
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 11:17:47 +1100
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> Any thoughts?
I'm nearly a week behind again and am trying to avoid thinking.
I've had a (n old) version of utrace in -mm for ages and it didn't
break anything.
I still don't think I've seen a really compelling reason for merging
it. At least, I wouldn't be able to explain why we did it. But
presumably there _are_ such reasons, because it was a lot of development work.
Someone please sell this to us.
(
Log in to post comments)
