On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 08:28:15AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> I already said earlier that I'd be perfectly happy to merge utrace code,
> as long as it was clear that I'm not merging a platform for crazy work.
> IOW, the end result might be merging 99% of the code, but I want to set
> peoples
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 01:24:41PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> FYI, the merge window has not opened yet, so it cannot close in a few
> days.
subsystems merged window, not Linus'.
>
> > [...] and thus not getting any of the broad -next test coverage is a
> > pretty bad idea. In the end it will
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 10:10:52AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > [...] Given that's it's pretty much too later for the 2.6.33 cycle
> > anyway I'd suggest you make sure the remaining two major architectures
> > (arm and mips) get converted, and if the remaining minor architectures
> > don't man
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 09:32:27PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Oleg Nesterov writes:
>
> > From: Roland McGrath
> >
> > This adds the utrace facility, a new modular interface in the kernel
> > for implementing user thread tracing and debugging. This fits on top
> > of the tracehook_* layer, so t
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 09:01:27PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Hello.
>
> This is the new iteration of Roland's utrace patch, this time
> with "rewrite-ptrace-via-utrace" + cleanups in utrace core.
>
> 1-7 are already in -mm tree, I am sending them to simplify the
> review.
>
> 8-12 don not ch
On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 02:19:10PM -0700, Piet Delaney wrote:
> Roland McGrath wrote:
>
> >Only a few arch's overload ->ptrace for private purposes, and I don't
> >foresee any problem getting those fixed up soon. (The parisc maintainer is
> >doing it already. I think xtensa might have something
On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 06:09:11PM -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
> > I agree, CONFIG_UTRACE_PTRACE should die. But what about !CONFIG_UTRACE
> > case? What should we do with arches which doesn't use tracehooks or
> > play with ptrace internals?
>
> AIUI hch wants to have ptrace rely on utrace. Tho
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
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
These are the notes and action items for the Tracing roundtable at the
Linux Foundation Collaboration summit, April 8-10 in San Francisco.
Attendes: Renzo Davoli, Mathieu Desnoyers, Jake Edge, Frank Ch. Eigler,
Christoph Hellwig, Masami Hiramatsu, Jim Keniston,
Roland McGrath
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
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 07:57:33PM -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
> 3. arch_ptrace()
>
> * You must define arch_ptrace() and not #define __ARCH_SYS_PTRACE.
__ARCH_SYS_PTRACE is already gone :)
>
> 4. compat_arch_ptrace()
>
> * If your arch uses CONFIG_COMPAT, you must
12 matches
Mail list logo
