Re: [PATCH 0/2][next] update gdb scripts for lockless printk ringbuffer

[Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>]

On 25.08.20 14:35, Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Mon 2020-08-24 10:20:53, Kieran Bingham wrote:
>> Hi Petr,
>>
>> On 21/08/2020 09:55, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> On 21.08.20 10:08, Petr Mladek wrote:
>>>> On Fri 2020-08-14 23:31:23, John Ogness wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> When we brought in the new lockless printk ringbuffer, we overlooked the gdb
>>>>> scripts. Here are a set of patches to implement gdb support for the new
>>>>> ringbuffer.
>>>>>
>>>>> John Ogness (2):
>>>>>   scripts/gdb: add utils.read_ulong()
>>>>>   scripts/gdb: update for lockless printk ringbuffer
>>>>
>>>> I am not fluent in the gdb macros and python so I did not try any
>>>> deep review. But both patches work for me:
>>>>
>>>> Tested-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
>>>>
>>>> I am going to give it few more days before pushing just in case there is
>>>> another feedback.
>>
>> Before 'pushing' ?
>>
>> What context do you mean here? These patches go through AKPM don't they?
>> Did I miss some update to procedures?
> 
> Both patches should go into mainline together with the lockless printk
> ring buffer. It is already in linux-next via printk/linux.git,
> branch printk-rework.
> 
> The plan is to get it into mainline when pr_cont() handling is solved.
> It is more complicated than we hoped for, see
> https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200824103538.31446-1-john.ogness@linutronix.de
> It is still not clear whether it will be ready for 5.10.
> 
> Andrew, would you mind when I take the three gdb/lockless-printk
> related changes via printk tree to avoid synchronization problems?

From my POV, that would be best in this case - but actually also in
other cases where developers happen to notice the dependency between
their refactorings and gdb scripts.

Jan

-- 
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RDA IOT SES-DE
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux