On Tue, Sep 05, 2000 at 05:30:46PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
>
> > A kernel debugger will reduce development costs. No one cares what's
> > underneath, [...]
>
> this is the point where IMO your argument gets flawed, and where you are
> apparently ignoring our arguments. With utmost respect, we *do* care about
> what's underneath. The health of what's underneath fueled and fuels the
> growth of Linux. I'd like to repeat it again: we cannot optimize for both
> the speed of FS driver development (your goal - correct me if i got it
> wrong), and long term health of the kernel proper itself (our goal),
> because in some areas (such as the inclusion of high complexity debugging
> facilities) they do contradict. (mostly they dont contradict) Long term
> health has priority - i cannot put it any simpler for you. Anyone who
> thinks driver development is the most important for Linux then thats a
> pretty shortsighted view IMO.
A (better?) kernel debugger could help (certain) people to help improve
the long term health, because they can't (or don't want) to use what's
available, or just think they can't easely do it with them. It could help
certain people who are used to debug a problem in certain ways, to debug
it, where they have no idea how to do it with the current tools, because
nobody explained them how to use them for that problem.
That debugger shouldn't be part of the main kernel, specially if it's so
complex. Trying to get the debugger to work might even find problems you
wouldn't easely find otherwise.
Kurt
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 07 2000 - 21:00:23 EST