Hi Ingo, On Fri, 25 Mar 2016 09:36:21 +0100 Ingo Molnar <mi...@kernel.org> 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: > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/1/29/64 > > ... 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." > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/1/29/397 > > 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. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell
