Re: Permanent Kgdb integration into the kernel - lets get with it.

[Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@oracle.com>]

On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 14:24:10 -0800 Piet Delaney wrote:

> On Thu, 2007-03-08 at 11:49 -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 07:37:56PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > On Thursday 08 March 2007 18:44, Dave Jiang wrote:
> > > 
> > > > In spite of kgdb, shouldn't it have that \n anyways in case some other code
> > > > gets added in the future after the macro? Or are you saying that there should
> > > > never be any code ever after that macro?
> > > 
> > > Sure if there is mainline code added after that macro we add the \n.
> > > But only if it makes sense to add code there, which it didn't in kgdb.
> > 
> > Was that because with recent enough tools and config options there was
> > enough annotations so GDB could finally figure out where things had
> > stopped?  Thanks.
> 
> The reason Linus said he didn't allow George's kgdb mm patch to 
> be integrating into the kernel a year or two ago was that Amit and
> George had significantly different implementations. So Amit, Tom, 
> George, and the rest of the kgdb development gang worked together 
> and came up with a unified version that we now support on SourceForge. 
> 
> Tom rolled up a mm patch back in December for Andrew and then the
> integration process stopped. I suggest we work together on getting
> the kgdb patch back into the mm series and permanently into the kernel
> like the kexec code and then we can avoid this kernel development
> obfuscation.

Hi,
Is there any movement on this?

Thanks,
---
~Randy
*** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***