> * unbounded utrace_engine_cache growth > started from 31a9ef5cfcdbae804e3e180c158bf2352728765a, > nobody knows why > testcase: at the end of > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=117128445312243&w=2
Is it correct that this only happens with CONFIG_PREEMPT=y? > * _pointer_ to struct utrace, which I personally count as design bug. > > Rationale to fold struct utrace into task_struct is that lifetime > rules of task_struct are well established, well tested and so on. As > was demonstrated it also removes much complexity from attaching logic. Ok, I'd be happy to discuss that in a separate thread. By "known bugs" I mean the symptoms and specific holes in the current implementation. An opinion about organizing the code is a fine thing, but not itself an item for that list. Thanks, Roland
