kernel package

[Oliver Falk]

On 05/11/2007 05:42 PM, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 10:13:21AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
>  > On Fri, 2007-05-11 at 09:53 -0500, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
>  > > On Fri, 2007-05-11 at 12:49 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
>  > > > On Fri, 2007-05-11 at 10:50 +0200, Oliver Falk wrote:
>  > > > > A question; Before I open BZ... Is the kernel team (I see Dave Jones is 
>  > > > > doin' much; that's why CC:) willing to help AlphaCore and add patches to 
>  > > > > kernel spec?
>  > > > > 
>  > > > > No, it's nothing for upstream. Just fixes for the spec. Some 
>  > > > > if(n)arch's, sections for alpha, a config, ... Nothing that should break 
>  > > > > primary archs...
>  > > > 
>  > > > We don't like ifarches. Why?
>  > > 
>  > > The utrace patch is the biggest concern here, really. Not that it's bad
>  > > code, but its a significant divergence from upstream, and it doesn't
>  > > work on sparc32 (and presumably, alpha). Aurora is %ifarch
>  > > conditionalizing that patch (and one later patch that has to be modified
>  > > slightly for the old ptrace behavior) in our kernels as well.
>  > 
>  > Does it apply?  Seems there's a config option for it... you could just
>  > leave that disabled in your .configs.
> 
> Problem is (AIUI) that doing that would remove ptrace functionality completely.
> With the patch applied, ptrace is implemented as a 'personality' of utrace.

So. If it doesn't work for sparc32 and we cannot simply disable it via 
.config, we should stick with ifnarch-ing it for now /me thinks. Maybe 
some good kernel-hacker can have a look into it.

Working out a patch, so we can disable utrace by .config and 
automatically enabling ptrace would be the best way!?

-of