Permanent Kgdb integration into the kernel - lets get with it.

[Piet Delaney]

On Thu, 2007-03-08 at 11:49 -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 07:37:56PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > On Thursday 08 March 2007 18:44, Dave Jiang wrote:
> > 
> > > In spite of kgdb, shouldn't it have that \n anyways in case some other code
> > > gets added in the future after the macro? Or are you saying that there should
> > > never be any code ever after that macro?
> > 
> > Sure if there is mainline code added after that macro we add the \n.
> > But only if it makes sense to add code there, which it didn't in kgdb.
> 
> Was that because with recent enough tools and config options there was
> enough annotations so GDB could finally figure out where things had
> stopped?  Thanks.

The reason Linus said he didn't allow George's kgdb mm patch to 
be integrating into the kernel a year or two ago was that Amit and
George had significantly different implementations. So Amit, Tom, 
George, and the rest of the kgdb development gang worked together 
and came up with a unified version that we now support on SourceForge. 

Tom rolled up a mm patch back in December for Andrew and then the
integration process stopped. I suggest we work together on getting
the kgdb patch back into the mm series and permanently into the kernel
like the kexec code and then we can avoid this kernel development
obfuscation.

-piet

 
> 
-- 
Piet Delaney                                    Phone: (408) 200-5256
Blue Lane Technologies                          Fax:   (408) 200-5299
10450 Bubb Rd.
Cupertino, Ca. 95014                            Email: piet@xxxxxxxxxxxx

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part