Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
Hello.
Randy Dunlap 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.
Hi,
Is there any movement on this?
Jason Wessel has taken up KGDB maintenance for upstream. We're now
working on merging the several diverse trees together.
WBR, Sergei
at kgdb.sf.net or where is the work being done?
Thanks,
--
~Randy
*** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
