Re: [PATCH][0/6] A different KGDB stub

["Amit S. Kale" <amitkale@emsyssoft.com>]

On Wednesday 18 Feb 2004 6:26 pm, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > > > > The following is my next attempt at a different KGDB stub
> > > > > for your tree
> > > >
> > > > Is this the patch which everyone agrees on?
> > >
> > > It is based on Amit's version, so I think answer is "yes". I certainly
> > > like this one.
> >
> > I don't agree. I did a few more cleanups after Andi expressed concerns
> > over globals kgdb_memerr and debugger_memerr_expected.
> >
> > I liked Pavel's approach. Let's first get a minimal kgdb stub into
> > mainline kernel. Even this much is going to involve some effort. We can
> > merge other features later.
> >
> > Let's create a cvs tree at kgdb.sourceforge.net for kgdb components to be
> > pushed int mainline kernel. This split is to keep current kgdb
> > unaffected. People who are already using it won't be affected.
>
> I do not think we want separate CVS tree.
>
> What about simply splitting core.patch into core-lite.patch and
> core.patch, maybe do the same with i386 patch, and be done with that?
> [We do not have enough people for a fork, I think].

Agreed. Let's create core-lite.patch and i386-lite.patch
It makes it somewhat difficult to maintain them, but should be easier than 
maintaining a separate CVS tree.

>
> Hopefully soon after that *-lite is merged, so it disappears, and
> stuff is easy once again.

Yes.
-- 
Amit Kale
EmSysSoft (http://www.emsyssoft.com)
KGDB: Linux Kernel Source Level Debugger (http://kgdb.sourceforge.net)