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

[Sergei Shtylyov <sshtylyov@ru.mvista.com>]

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
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/