* Roland McGrath <rol...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > Regarding ptrace-via-utrace. What is the plan there? Am i looking
> > the right branch:
> >
> > | earth4:~/linux.trees.git> git diff --stat
> > | linus/master..utrace/utrace-ptrace kernel/ptrace.c
> > arch/x86/kernel/ptrace.c
> > | kernel/ptrace.c | 803
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> > | 1 files changed, 794 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> >
> > dc43527: Merge branch 'utrace' into utrace-ptrace
>
> That is the branch that there is, yes. Its comparison vs its baseline is:
>
> include/linux/ptrace.h | 21 ++
> include/linux/sched.h | 1 +
> include/linux/tracehook.h | 19 +-
> init/Kconfig | 18 +
> kernel/ptrace.c | 785
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> kernel/signal.c | 14 +-
> kernel/utrace.c | 23 ++
> 7 files changed, 870 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> > I'd have (perhaps foolishly) expected ptrace.c to get reduced in
> > size and arch/x86/kernel/ptrace.c eliminated - but that does not
> > seem to be direction of movement. What am i missing?
>
> Expecting that arch file to go away is just a complete
> misunderstanding on your part. [...]
Sorry - it's what 30 seconds of looking gives me while trying to
preare for a really busy merge window :-)
This kind of info should have been 1) emitted a month ago, in the
middle of the development window, 2) have been part of the
submission ('why do we want it' 'what will be the future benefit?').
I'm asking trivial and stupid looking followup questions, to help
construct that kind of high level information. If it annoys you i
can stop.
> [...] Look at what is actually in that file. arch_ptrace() and
> compat_arch_ptrace() are the only things there that are actually
> part of ptrace per se. I'm not sure how much smaller you expect
> those to get.
yeah, no big reduction potential there.
Ingo
