* Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> [2010-01-15 10:07:35]: > On Thu, 2010-01-14 at 14:43 -0800, Jim Keniston wrote: > > > > Yeah, there's not a lot of context there. I hope it will make more > > sense if you read section 1.1 of Documentation/uprobes.txt (patch #6). > > Or look at get_insn_slot() in kprobes, and understand that we're trying > > to do something similar in uprobes, where the instruction copies have to > > reside in the user address space of the probed process. > > That's not the point, changelogs shoulnd not be this cryptic. They > should be stand alone and descriptive of what, why and how. > > If you can't be bothered writing such for something you want reviewed > for inclusion then I might not be bothered looking at them at all. >
Okay shall add to the Changelog with the information providing the context for this patch.
