On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 16:04 -0700, Tom Rini wrote: > On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 03:41:52PM -0700, Piet Delaney wrote: > [snip] > > I don't see any good reason why we shouldn't provide debug support in > > the patch to facilitate installing the kgdb stub. It's been part of kgdb > > stubs as far back as the old SunOS 4.1.4 patch I used back in 1995. > > The goal of this project is something that's mergable with kernel.org > and something like that is far to ugly to live.
Then all of our stuff should be #ifdef KGDB; while merging from 2.6.12 to 2.6.13 I recall it noticing a few of the #ifdef KGDB's had been removed. I don't think a few keep printk's, like George had would be unacceptable; Andrew had no problems with it in the mm series. Something like the SOCK_DEBUG() macro might be reasonable; KGDB_DEBUG(); where the function name is prefixed to all printk output. Macro is about 6 lines of code and it's cosmetic impact in very small. The kgdb stub is special; you can't use kgdb on it to debug it. BTW, there isn't any incompatibility between the KGDB and KDUMP patches is there? > > The other problem is I don't see the use for it, and I've had a lot of > problems I've had to fix. Since you can see what kgdb sent in GDB, you > don't need to try and send it along again. If the two can communicate, > this is redundant, if the two cannot communicate, it's not helpful > either. I problems like Steve's, where the stub isn't responding it's useful. I used it a few times; my bet is that it is useful if used judicially like George's patch. Looks like our mail problem here is postmaster doesn't exist on one of our mail transfer agents (MTA). We are working on it. -piet > -- --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Kgdb-bugreport mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kgdb-bugreport
