Re: Permanent Kgdb integration into the kernel - lets get with it.

[Sergei Shtylyov <sshtylyov@ru.mvista.com>]

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.
>>>>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?

   Jason Wessel has taken up KGDB maintenance for upstream. We're now working on merging the several diverse trees together.

WBR, Sergei