Subject: Re: linux-next: add utrace tree

From: Andrew Morton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 17:05:41 -0800

On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 19:51:47 -0500 "Frank Ch. Eigler" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hi -
> 
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 04:31:45PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > [...]
> > > Someone please sell this to us.
> > Here's what Oleg said last time I asked this: [...]
> 
> I wonder if Roland/Oleg are being too modest in their current role as
> ptrace maintainers.  Considering that *they* think of utrace as a
> means toward proper refactoring of ptrace, how much further burden of
> proof should they shoulder?  To what extent are other subsystem
> maintainers required to "sell" reworkings of their areas, when there
> appear to be no drawbacks and at least arguable benefits?
> 

ptrace is a nasty, complex part of the kernel which has a long history
of problems, but it's all been pretty quiet in there for the the past few
years.  This leads one to expect that a rip-out-n-rewrite is a
high-risk prospect.  So, quite reasonably, one looks for a good reason
for taking such risk.

It's not really appropriate to generalise from other subsystem
maintainer's reworkings onto ptrace.  It's very rare that we'd make a
change this radical to a tricky part of core kernel.