> 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 reit
<>
* Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 11:05:12AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > It might be more effective if you also wrote patches and if you
> > would shop for maintainer Acks, instead of just "pinging" people?
> > ;-) We've already got enough would-be-managers on lkml really.
On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 11:05:12AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> It might be more effective if you also wrote patches and if you
> would shop for maintainer Acks, instead of just "pinging" people?
> ;-) We've already got enough would-be-managers on lkml really.
I have no interest touching tons of
* Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 10:12:25AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > Yes. But realize the fundamental reason for that: _without_
> > ptrace-over-utrace the utrace core code is a big chunk of dead code
> > only used on the fringes. I see and agree with all the future us
On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 10:12:25AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Yes. But realize the fundamental reason for that: _without_
> ptrace-over-utrace the utrace core code is a big chunk of dead code
> only used on the fringes. I see and agree with all the future uses
> of utrace, but it's easy to be p
* Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 05/04, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 4 May 2009 12:43:48 -0700 (PDT)
> > Roland McGrath wrote:
> >
> > > I guess we should take Andrew's advice on this. To me, it
> > > makes most sense just to order the -mm patches so utrace comes
> > > later, and replace
