On 05/04, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Mon, 4 May 2009 12:43:48 -0700 (PDT) > Roland McGrath <rol...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > 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. > > Staging the utrace patch at end-of-series would make sense if utrace is > not on track for a 2.6.31 merge. > > And afaict, this is indeed the case - things seem to have gone a bit > quiet on the utrace front lately.
The only goal of current ptrace cleanups is to simplify the "ptrace over utrace" change (hopefully they make sense by themselves though). I am obviously biased, but imho the only real problem with utrace-ptrace.patch is the current ptrace code which needs cleanups. Oleg.