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

[Sergei Shtylyov <sshtylyov@ru.mvista.com>]

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.

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

   Currently, 2.6.21 branch is in SF CVS but unfortunately it's not yet in sync with (abandoned) Tom Rini's trees.

> Thanks,

WBR, Sergei