From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 1 May 2001 05:38:23 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 1 May 2001 05:38:13 -0400 Received: from asterix.hrz.tu-chemnitz.de ([134.109.132.84]:11396 "EHLO asterix.hrz.tu-chemnitz.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 1 May 2001 05:38:01 -0400 Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 11:37:58 +0200 From: Ingo Oeser To: Jeff Dike Cc: Paul J Albrecht , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Linux Kernel Debuggers, KDB or KGDB? Message-ID: <20010501113758.D3305@nightmaster.csn.tu-chemnitz.de> In-Reply-To: <01043016264000.00697@CB57534-A> <200105010011.TAA04345@ccure.karaya.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i In-Reply-To: <200105010011.TAA04345@ccure.karaya.com>; from jdike@karaya.com on Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 07:11:35PM -0500 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 07:11:35PM -0500, Jeff Dike wrote: > pjalbrecht@home.com said: > > Where can I find an analysis of the relative strengths and weaknesses > > of KDB and KGDB for kernel debug? Has the linux community come to any > > consensus regarding the utility one or the other? > > You ought to add UML to the list, since it is useful for > debugging any part of the kernel that's not arch code or a > hardware device driver (except that there's now USB support for > UML). Basically you could add support for ALL generic subsystems, that support dummy hardware, like SCSI and ISDN for example. Is that planned or do I suggest sth. stupid here? ;-) Regards Ingo Oeser -- 10.+11.03.2001 - 3. Chemnitzer LinuxTag <<<<<<<<<<<< been there and had much fun >>>>>>>>>>>>