Re: [PATCH 0/21] KGDB: Request to merge KGDB

[Russell King]

On Thu, Oct 18, 2007 at 04:25:53PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 12:23:10AM +0900, Paul Mundt wrote:
> > It would also be nice to balance this out with the utrace merge, as both
> > are going to cause quite a lot of pain on the architecture side.
> 
> I don't think a utrace merge as in one big merge is going to happen ever.
> It's just a too big patch doing too many things at once.  And the flag day
> for switching all architectures over is another blocker.

I agree with Christoph - the fact that *all* architectures have to be
either ptrace or utrace make it very very painful.

What would be good is if some effort could be made by the utrace-
interested parties to make the transition to utrace much less painful.
For instance, I quite like the getregs/setregs abstractions, and it
looks like these *could* be self-contained in a single patch.  It
would be nice if we could move architectures over to this one a time.
Once that's in, that's one chunk of utrace merged.

-- 
Russell King
 Linux kernel    2.6 ARM Linux   - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
 maintainer of:
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/