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

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

Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> Hello.
> 
> Randy Dunlap 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?
> 
>   Jason Wessel has taken up KGDB maintenance for upstream. We're now 
> working on merging the several diverse trees together.
> 
> WBR, Sergei

at kgdb.sf.net or where is the work being done?

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