* Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com> wrote:

quoted text
> I know.  That completely misses the point I just made:
> 
>    As I said then, one of my concerns was with the low-level tweaks 
>    not yet sufficiently baked, independent from my reservations about 
>    the ptrace feature.  Your #if'ing out of the user ABI additions for 
>    2.6.25 does nothing to remove the unknown new risks from all the 
>    tweaks with fingers in the low-level arch stuff.  This is the sort 
>    of thing I was concerned about.
> 
> You didn't revert the parts that ever could have caused problems for 
> anyone except those using the new ptrace extensions, i.e. changes to 
> step.c, context switch, whatever else was touched we've lost track of 
> now.  I keep saying that those are not baked, 100% independent of the 
> ptrace feature.  You don't seem to be hearing me.

well the issue is that both regset and bts had regressions, so the 
safest was to do the minimal step of undoing any externally visible 
changes. Feel free to send a reverter patch for the other lowlevel bts 
bits as well.

	Ingo
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/