From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264477AbUBEBEP (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Feb 2004 20:04:15 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264476AbUBEBDG (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Feb 2004 20:03:06 -0500 Received: from fw.osdl.org ([65.172.181.6]:35792 "EHLO mail.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265111AbUBDXxd (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Feb 2004 18:53:33 -0500 Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 15:54:52 -0800 From: Andrew Morton To: "La Monte H.P. Yarroll" Cc: pavel@ucw.cz, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, amitkale@emsyssoft.com Subject: Re: kgdb support in vanilla 2.6.2 Message-Id: <20040204155452.49c1eba8.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <402182B8.7030900@timesys.com> References: <20040204230133.GA8702@elf.ucw.cz> <20040204152137.500e8319.akpm@osdl.org> <402182B8.7030900@timesys.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.7 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i586-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org "La Monte H.P. Yarroll" wrote: > > Andrew Morton wrote: > > >Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > > >>It seems that some kgdb support is in 2.6.2-linus: > >> > >> > > > >Lots of architectures have had in-kernel kgdb support for a long time. > >Just none of the three which I use :( > > > >I wouldn't support inclusion of i386 kgdb until it has had a lot of > >cleanup, possible de-featuritisification and some thought has been applied > >to splitting it into arch and generic bits. It's quite a lot of work. > > > > > > Amit has started at least the third activity--he has split much of kgdb > into arch and generic bits. Yes. > Could you elaborate a little on the first two? > > What major kinds of cleanup are we talking about? Style issues? Coding style compliance, reduction of ifdefs, etc. Reduction of patch footprint. There are a few features in the patch in -mm which I am not aware of anyone having used. > What features (or classes of features) do you find excessive? Would > it be sufficient to add a few config items to control subfeatures > of kgdb? > People have added timestamping infrastructure, stack overflow testing and inbuilt assertion frameworks to various gdb stubs at various times. We need to take a look at such things and really convice ourselves that they're worthwhile. Personally, I'd only be interested in the basic stub. I need to take a look at Amit's current patch - it sounds good.