Re: linux-next: add utrace tree
[Posted January 27, 2010 by jake]
| From: |
| Andrew Morton <akpm-AT-linux-foundation.org> |
| To: |
| "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche-AT-redhat.com> |
| Subject: |
| Re: linux-next: add utrace tree |
| Date: |
| Thu, 21 Jan 2010 17:05:41 -0800 |
| Cc: |
| Stephen Rothwell <sfr-AT-canb.auug.org.au>,
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>,
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> |
On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 19:51:47 -0500 "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@redhat.com> 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.
