On 4/9/12 3:47 PM, "Will Drewry" <wad@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Ryan Ware <ware@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On 4/9/12 1:47 PM, "Markus Gutschke" <markus@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>>No matter what you do, please leave the samples accessible somewhere. >>>They proved incredibly useful in figuring out how the API works. I am >>>sure, other developers are going to appreciate them as well. >>> >>>Alternatively, if you don't want to include the samples with the >>>kernel sources, figure out how you can include a sample in the >>>official manual page for prctl(). >>> >> >> I second this! They are extremely useful. >> >> Ryan > >In that case, would it make sense to put up a separate tools/testing >patch and leave samples where they lie? (I'd _love_ to keep this patch >series from acquiring another 1000 lines, but either way works :) > >My current tester and harness lives here: > https://github.com/redpig/seccomp/blob/master/tests/ >and the licensing can be sorted out prior to a patch mail. I have absolutely no problems with that solution. Availability is the important thing. Ryan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
