* Peter Zijlstra: > I'm not sure I read Thomas' comment like that. In my reading keeping the > PT_NOTE fallback is exactly one of those 'fly workarounds'. By not > supporting PT_NOTE only the 'fine' people already shit^Hpping this out > of tree are affected, and we don't have to care about them at all. Just to be clear here: There was an ABI document that required PT_NOTE parsing. The Linux kernel does *not* define the x86-64 ABI, it only implements it. The authoritative source should be the ABI document. In this particularly case, so far anyone implementing this ABI extension tried to provide value by changing it, sometimes successfully. Which makes me wonder why we even bother to mainatain ABI documentation. The kernel is just very late to the party. Thanks, Florian
