Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > * Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 01:38:39PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: >> > So unless i forgot about something (please yell if so), it seems to >> > me kgdb is now pretty ready for an upstream merge. >> >> I don't know -- I have not reread everything. Please don't consider my >> comments as approval of the code base. [...] > > well, it does not take a mindreader to conclude that nothing we do could > possibly result in you "concluding" that kgdb would be ready for a merge > ;-) > > for me it suffices that you've run out of technical arguments and are > resorting to non-technical name-calling: > >> [...] I still think it does quite a lot of dubious and ugly things >> overall [...]
Let's put it like this: the amount of problems I found by reading only about 20% of the kgdb patch justifies the statement above. Also contrary to your repeated claims many of those are not fixed yet as far as I can see. Also every time I dig into something new problems raise their head -- e.g. see earlier exchange with Jason about the likely bogus recursion check. Overall that's not a sign of a clean merge ready code base. -Andi -- 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/
