From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755893AbcA1WHj (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Jan 2016 17:07:39 -0500 Received: from www.linutronix.de ([62.245.132.108]:37763 "EHLO Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751439AbcA1WHh (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Jan 2016 17:07:37 -0500 Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 23:06:30 +0100 (CET) From: Thomas Gleixner To: Jeffrey Merkey cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, dzickus@redhat.com, uobergfe@redhat.com, atomlin@redhat.com, mhocko@suse.cz, fweisbec@gmail.com, tj@kernel.org, hidehiro.kawai.ez@hitachi.com, cmetcalf@ezchip.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/31] Add hard/soft lockup debugger entry points In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <1454010366-28416-1-git-send-email-jeffmerkey@gmail.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (DEB 23 2013-08-11) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Linutronix-Spam-Score: -1.0 X-Linutronix-Spam-Level: - X-Linutronix-Spam-Status: No , -1.0 points, 5.0 required, ALL_TRUSTED=-1,SHORTCIRCUIT=-0.0001 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 28 Jan 2016, Jeffrey Merkey wrote: > On 1/28/16, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > If you don't get it Thomas, I don't know what else to say. Right now > the only debugger that provides disassembly on a single running live > Linux system is the one I use unless you want to use a serial > connection with kgdb. All you are convincing me of is that you don't > use a debugger or sit around looking at dissassembly all day long on > live linux systems looking for bugs or you would understand why this > is so helpful. So I totally understand why you don't get this. It does not matter a whit whether I use a debugger or not. It matters that I can find out without too much hassle where this stupid address is where I want to set my breakpoint. It's not rocket science. > Think of it like git. Before git was around, everything was done with > manual patches. Now we have git, and everything can be automated. > Same thing here. Why do I want to grep around looking for a bug when > I can have linux find it for me. Using the proper tools you can figure that address out fully automated without rumaging in disassembly. You obviously completely ignored this part of my reply: > > If we follow your argumentation we need another gazillion of conditional > > breakpoints in the kernel. Thanks, tglx