This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PING] [PATCH] sys/ptrace.h: remove obsolete Linux PTRACE_SEIZE_DEVEL constant
- From: Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>
- To: Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com>, Marcus Shawcroft <marcus dot shawcroft at arm dot com>, Szabolcs Nagy <szabolcs dot nagy at arm dot com>, Mike Frysinger <vapier at gentoo dot org>, Stefan Liebler <stli at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>, "David S. Miller" <davem at davemloft dot net>, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 12:39:03 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PING] [PATCH] sys/ptrace.h: remove obsolete Linux PTRACE_SEIZE_DEVEL constant
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- Authentication-results: ext-mx07.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com
- Authentication-results: ext-mx07.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=fweimer at redhat dot com
- Dmarc-filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com E2391C0B936D
- References: <20170808163039.GD4763@altlinux.org> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
On 08/08/2017 09:07 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> On 08/08/2017 12:30 PM, Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 09:20:17AM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>>> On 08/07/2017 11:33 AM, Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
>>>> Looks like among those few who care about sys/ptrace.h nobody feels
>>>> experienced enough to review this change, so I'll go forward and commit it.
>>> Please tread carefully, and give the machine maintainer time to review, or
>>> directly TO: the machine maintainers and ask for review.
>>> Lack of a response does not mean you can assume consensus. Follow up with
>>> machine maintainers, even one ACK from a maintainer goes a long way to
>>> knowing there is support for your change.
>> JFYI, PTRACE_SEIZE_DEVEL was an architecture-independent constant.
> Agreed, but the patch still touches machine-specific headers.
I don't think our maintainer process confers exclusive code ownership,
quite the opposite actually. It's unblock-by-default for the
maintainer, not block-everyone-else.
I looked at Dmitry's changes, and they look good to me. Please
reconsider your opposition.