On Sat, 2007-04-21 at 11:48 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > Lots of people want kgdb. One person is famously less keen on it, but
> > we'll be able to talk him around, as long as the patches aren't daft.
>
> The big question is if the kgdb developers seriously want mainline.
> At least in the past t
> Lots of people want kgdb. One person is famously less keen on it, but
> we'll be able to talk him around, as long as the patches aren't daft.
The big question is if the kgdb developers seriously want mainline.
At least in the past this definitely wasn't the case.
If they're not open to change
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 15:51:35 -0700
Piet Delaney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Is there any movement on this?
>
> Hi Randy:
>
> Jason Wessel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> is currently leading yet
> another attempt at getting kgdb permanently into the kernel. Jason
> has a linux2_6_21 patch on SourceForge:
On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 11:30 -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> 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:
> >
On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 08:45:03PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> > Is there any movement on this?
>
> I'm open to reasonable patches for the hooks at least. If that is done
> then the actual kgdb code can be reviewed and considered eventually too.
Would you be open to adding to that set of hooks
Andi Kleen wrote:
> Is there any movement on this?
I'm open to reasonable patches for the hooks at least. If that is done
then the actual kgdb code can be reviewed and considered eventually too.
But just having the hooks in would make it easy enough to use anyways
(no patching, just dropping
> I too am open to having a API, for KGDB, but it does need more than just
> the trap vectors and the serial driver as hook points. There are a
> number of patches to fix problems randing from the NET_POLL API, NMI
> handling,
You should submit these changes all as you fix them to the relevant
> Is there any movement on this?
I'm open to reasonable patches for the hooks at least. If that is done
then the actual kgdb code can be reviewed and considered eventually too.
But just having the hooks in would make it easy enough to use anyways
(no patching, just dropping in of new files, or
Randy Dunlap 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 onl
Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
Hello.
Randy Dunlap 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 th
Hello.
Randy Dunlap 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.
Bu
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
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
13 matches
Mail list logo
