Re: [git pull] kgdb-light -v10

[Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>]

Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> writes:

> * Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> 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