Mike Galbraith writes:
> 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
Fine. Then let's add that, at least. It's probably the #1 thing
> (What means 'social engineering attempts'?)
Attempting to change people's habits by making it hard to debug.
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