On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 05:53:34PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 05:42:29PM +0100, Dave P Martin wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 03:11:23PM -0700, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 08:06:12PM +0100, Dave P Martin wrote: > > > > On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 10:29:11AM -0700, Catalin Marinas wrote: [...] > > > > > Can this be merged with patch 20? It seems to add the PR_ definitions > > > > > which get actually used later when the prctl interface is added. > > > > > > > > This patch is used both by patch 19 and by patch 20, which I preferred > > > > not to merge with each other: ptrace and prctl are significantly > > > > different things. > > > > > > > > The prctl bit definitions are added here because they are the canonical > > > > definitions used by both interfaces. The ptrace #defines are based on > > > > them. > > > > > > > > Does it make sense if I merge patch 20 into this one and apply patch 19 > > > > on top? This avoide the appearance of prctl #defines with no prctl > > > > implementation. > > > > > > That's fine, you can bring patch 20 forward. If there are other > > > non-trivial issues, feel free to ignore my comment. > > > > I've had a go at this, but I think it's going to be more trouble than > > it's worth -- there are other interdependencies between the patches > > which make them tricky to reorder. > > > > I could add a note in the commit message for this patch explaining why > > the prctl flag #defines are being added here. What do you think? > > As I said, it's up to you. A line in the commit message would do. OK, I think I'll stick with this then. Cheers ---Dave
