Hi - On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 01:59:11PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > [...] > > Finally, I don't know how to address the logic of "if a feature > > requires utrace, that's a bad argument for utrace" and at the same > > time "you need to show a killer app for utrace". What could possibly > > satisfy both of those constraints? Please advise. > > The point is, the feature needs to be a killer feature. And I have yet to > hear _any_ such killer feature, especially from a kernel maintenance > standpoint. > The "better ptrace than ptrace" is irrelevant. Sure, we all know ptrace > isn't a wonderful feature. But it's there, and a debugger is going to have > support for it anyway, so what's the _advantage_ of a "better ptrace > interface"? There is absolutely _zero_ advantage, there's just "yet > another interface". We can't get rid of the old one _anyway_. The point is that the intermediate api will allow (and, as the part you clipped out about utrace-gdbstub said, *already has allowed*) alternative plausible interfaces that coexist just fine. > And the seccomp replacement just sounds horrible. Using some tracing > interface to implement security models sounds like the worst idea ever. So all this is about *naming* utrace? It was never built "for tracing", but for (efficient/multiplexed) *control*. That wasn't even its original name -- one of your lieutenants asked roland to change it to utrace. > And like it or not, over the last almost-decade, _not_ having to > have to work with system tap has been a feature, not a problem, for > the kernel community. I don't have a problem with that. We have apprx. never imposed anything on developers who didn't want to use it. There are plenty who have and will. - FChE -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
