On Út 26-04-05 10:34:56, Takashi Ikebe wrote:
> I think that's the common sense in every carrier.
> If we reboot the switch, the service will be disrupted.
> The phone network is lifeline, and does not allow to be disrupt by just
> bug fix.
> I think same kind of function is needed in many real
> enterprise/mission-critical/business area.
>
> All do with ptrace may affect target process's time critical task. (need
> to stop target process whenever fix)
> All implement in user application costs too much, need to implement all
> the application...(and I do not know this approach really works on time
> critical applications yet.)
> There are clear demand to realize this common and GPL-ed function....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I had very strong urge to reply with "<plonk>" here.
Clearly noone but you wants to make kernel more ugly just for "faster
ptrace". If you want faster ptrace, fine, advertise it as such and
provide nice and small patch to make it faster.
If you are going to handwave about "clear demand", well, find some
other list to troll on.
Pavel
--
Boycott Kodak -- for their patent abuse against Java.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
