On Tue, 2009-03-31 at 11:17 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, 2009-03-30 at 15:18 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > So we need to work out what to do about utrace and I feel a need to hit > > the reset button on all this. Largely because I've forgotten > > everything and it was all confusing anyway. > > Right, from my POV something like utrace is desirable, since its > basically a huge multiplexer for the debugger state, eventually allowing > us to have multiple debuggers attached to the same process. > > So in that respect its a very nice feature. > > > 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. > > Last time when I looked at the code, it needed a bit more care and > comments wrt lifetimes and such. I know Roland has done a lot on that > front -- so I'll need to re-inspect. > > As to in-kernel users, currently we only have ptrace, and no full > conversion to utrace is in a mergeable shape afaik. > > UML (Jeff CC'ed) might want to use this. > > I know the Systemtap people need this (fche). But that isn't really > moving towards mainline any time soon afaict. > > Then there is this little thing called frysk which uses it, no idea what > kind of kernel space that needs, nor where it lives -- or for that > matter, wth it really does ;-)
And Frank reminded me we have an ftrace tracer that utilizes utrace. > Anyway, long story short, once people have had a little time to go over > the code, and a few in-kernel users are lined-up, I think we should > consider merging it.
