On Thu, 2007-03-08 at 11:49 -0700, Tom Rini wrote: > On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 07:37:56PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote: > > On Thursday 08 March 2007 18:44, Dave Jiang 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. -piet > -- Piet Delaney Phone: (408) 200-5256 Blue Lane Technologies Fax: (408) 200-5299 10450 Bubb Rd. Cupertino, Ca. 95014 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
