Re: [git pull] kgdb-light -v10

[Ingo Molnar]

* Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Anyways the slight risk of the other CPUs eventually recovering would 
> seem a acceptable trade off versus not being able to use the debugger 
> to debug the system with hanging CPUs.

see? There's the difference between us. The initial merge of KGDB does 
not want to include policies for nuances that pose an "acceptable slight 
risk".

Had we done it, you could have (rightfully in that case, i have to say) 
complained about that "slight but real danger" of a debugger activating 
without waiting for all CPUs to respond.

> A possible compromise between my and your position on this would be 
> also having an option for this, with default to off (although I would 
> expect that would be a inconvenient default for many people)

yes, i said this the first time you mentioned this issue that while it's 
all no big deal, it could perhaps be a sensible (but default-off) 
layered-on option for later. But the initial merge is for obvious stuff 
and it does not want to do such things.

	Ingo
--
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/