Re: putting Ptrace back to 64-bit

[Mark Wielaard <mark@klomp.org>]

Hi Andrew,

On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 08:37 -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > On Wed, 2007-08-01 at 22:58 -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >> I don't understand the rationale behind this change:
> >
> > It was proposed and explained as a follow up for the LogicalMemoryBuffer
> > under "A couple of things to note, questions and upcoming work" at:
> > http://sourceware.org/ml/frysk/2007-q3/msg00163.html
> > And the rationale was again added when the actual patch to implement it
> > was posted: http://sourceware.org/ml/frysk/2007-q3/msg00216.html   
> 
> Please run such things directly past me.

I am happy for people to review my patches before committing. But you
have to give me some guidance here since till now we didn't have any
formal reviews, but were relying on unit tests to catch any badness. In
this case I thought it was a simple cleanup refactoring to make the real
work that I was doing easier and the code safer (as explained in that
first email). What kind of changes do you want to have reviewed first
and by who. Do you want people to be CCed on such patches? Can't we just
make it so that if a patch is posted to the list anybody can review it
to make sure it is sane?

Cheers,

Mark