Re: [GIT PULL v4.6] MDB Linux Kernel Debugger x86/x86_64

From: Stephen Rothwell
Date: Fri Mar 25 2016 - 21:48:45 EST

Hi Ingo,

On Fri, 25 Mar 2016 09:36:21 +0100 Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> So neither the x86 nor other affected maintainers have acked these changes or have
> agreed to merge it - in fact there are outstanding NAKs against this tree, which
> were not mentioned in the pull request.
> Here's one of the objections by me:
> ... which technical objections were replied to by Jeff Merkey by accusing me of
> trolling:
> "You were not included on the post since you are not a maintainer of watchdog.c
> so I am confused as to why you are nacking and trolling me on something not in
> your area."
> So this tree is very far from being ready and I'm not convinced we want to merge
> it in its current form. If we merge bits of it then we want to merge it via the
> x86 tree, not a separate tree.
> In fact I also have more fundamental objections as well, such as the question of
> unnecessary code duplication: this new MDB debugger overlaps in functionality with
> the already in-tree kgdb+KDB live kernel debugger approach:
> I don't think we want to see two overlapping solutions in this area, both of which
> are inferior in their own ways. If then the KDB frontend should be improved:
> features such as disassembler output, more commands and usability improvements
> that can and should be added to the KDB front-end instead. I see nothing in this
> patch that couldn't be added to KDB/KGDB.
> All in one, I'd much rather like to see a gradual set of improvement patches to
> KDB, to improve live kernel debugging, than this kind of monolithic, arch
> dependent duplication of functionality.

Thanks for your input clarifying the situation.
Stephen Rothwell