Hi Petr, On 21/08/2020 09:55, Jan Kiszka wrote: > On 21.08.20 10:08, Petr Mladek wrote: >> On Fri 2020-08-14 23:31:23, John Ogness wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> When we brought in the new lockless printk ringbuffer, we overlooked the gdb >>> scripts. Here are a set of patches to implement gdb support for the new >>> ringbuffer. >>> >>> John Ogness (2): >>> scripts/gdb: add utils.read_ulong() >>> scripts/gdb: update for lockless printk ringbuffer >> >> I am not fluent in the gdb macros and python so I did not try any >> deep review. But both patches work for me: >> >> Tested-by: Petr Mladek <pmla...@suse.com> >> >> I am going to give it few more days before pushing just in case there is >> another feedback.
Before 'pushing' ? What context do you mean here? These patches go through AKPM don't they? Did I miss some update to procedures? >> > > Thanks, perfect! > >> Best Regards, >> Petr >> >> BTW: Are you aware of https://github.com/crash-python/crash-python project? >> The ambition is to implement "crash" features and even more into >> gdb using python extensions. It similar approach like >> scripts/gdb/ >> >> crash-python is being developed sporadically in waves. It is >> mostly during a week that is dedicated for such projects >> at SUSE. It would be great to get more contributors. >> > > The problem with all those out-of-tree kernel debugging projects is that > they are even further away from the changes in upstream they need to > adjust to over and over again. It's already hard for scripts/gdb to keep > up as only few people are aware of the dependencies, and it's always > easy to forget. But it's getting better and better here IMHO. And that > was my idea behind pushing things into upstream. Seconding that, and having also investigated the crash projects in previous work. I really wish there was more alignment to the kernel ;-) /me ponders what happened to the kernel awareness integrations on GDB... I know others have been investigating too, If only I had time ... > Jan > -- -- Kieran
