On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 14:24:10 -0800 Piet Delaney wrote: > 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.
Hi, Is there any movement on this? 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/
