> The second patch "ptrace: do not use task_lock() for attach" has nothing > to do with utrace, and it is really pure ptrace cleanup.
Indeed. > But it can't be applied to -mm tree, because it (textually) conficts with > utrace changes in ptrace_attach(). Oh, -mm. I had not thought about the -mm patch merge order. I just look at the whole ptrace-related series from you as an independent series on top of Linus -current, preceding anything else related. > > When those are on their way, > > we'll update the utrace patches not to conflict. I don't think it makes > > sense to include utrace.patch's little ptrace.c change in the baseline tree > > for your ptrace cleanup patches. > > Yes, but in this case, how can we push it before utrace-core.patch ? > > The first patch is only for -mm, to avoid the painful dependencies. 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 the utrace patch as necessary with a compatible version. Perhaps things would be simpler if we made a separate standalone series or git tree (tip/ptrace?) for ptrace cleanups. Thanks, Roland
