On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, Richard Gooch wrote:
> Ingo Molnar writes:
> > The reference kernel should be IMO 'untainted' though. Believe me,
> > during the 2.3.2x pagecache rewrite my kernel was hacked with ad-hoc
> > debugging code beyond recognition - eg. automatic checksumming of
> > every physical page in the system to detect stray DMA related memory
> > corruption. No rocket science, but ugly enough to 'taint' the
> > kernel proper. Would any of the debugging facilities advocated in
> > this thread have helped in the bugs we were chasing at that time?
> > Nope. Do i want such debugging code to ever show up in the mainsteam
> > kernel? Hell no.
> Would you classify IKD as a pile of warts you wouldn't want to see in
> the kernel?
I run IKD 99.99% of the time (maintenance helper bee). Still, I wouldn't
want to see it in the kernel.. except maybe kdb. IKD is very intrusive
from the code readability standpoint. Memleak in particular has a zillion
ugly ifdefs I don't know how to get rid of.
> Surely there must be some useful features that can be included in the
> kernel without uglyfing it or slowing it down (configed out)? Leaving
> aside the social engineering attempts, of course :-)
They can all be configured out, and they are all useful. KDB is the only
one which (imho) could be integrated without uglifying the code.
(What means 'social engineering attempts'?)
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to email@example.com
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 07 2000 - 21:00:24 EST