On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 11:05:12AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > It might be more effective if you also wrote patches and if you > would shop for maintainer Acks, instead of just "pinging" people? > ;-) We've already got enough would-be-managers on lkml really.
I have no interest touching tons of architectures where the maintainers are much better of looking at those lowlevel bits. See the case where Roland tried to do ARM but still hasn't gotten any feedback as a negative example. > Really, the above isnt a blocker list, it's your personal wish-list > for the future. Cleaning up ptrace itself is already an upstream > advantage worth having - for years ptrace was barely maintained. It > interfaces to enough critical projects (gdb, strace, UML, etc.) to > be a realiable (and testable) basis for utrace. The cleanups aren't there for cleanup purposes, but to actually allow the utrace-based ptrace being used unconditionally. There is really no point in merging a second conditional ptrace implementation that has to be maintained while we add another one that doesn't add a single new feature.
