From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MR2RW-0001J8-Iu for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 15 Jul 2009 07:14:34 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MR2RR-0001EC-HD for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 15 Jul 2009 07:14:33 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=40317 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MR2RR-0001E9-Bp for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 15 Jul 2009 07:14:29 -0400 Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:44112) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MR2RQ-0006cD-RU for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 15 Jul 2009 07:14:29 -0400 Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 14:12:22 +0300 From: Gleb Natapov Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] monitor: Add port write command Message-ID: <20090715111222.GG28046@redhat.com> References: <4A5C3FBB.10306@siemens.com> <200907142030.27019.paul@codesourcery.com> <20090715073451.GF28046@redhat.com> <200907151114.21482.paul@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200907151114.21482.paul@codesourcery.com> List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Paul Brook Cc: Jan Kiszka , Anthony Liguori , qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 11:14:20AM +0100, Paul Brook wrote: > > > I'd be reluctant to expose the savevm state to the user. > > > > > > For debugging qemu I don't see it providing any real benefit over firing > > > up GDB and poking directly at the device directly. > > > > Not all environments where you need to debug things have gdb, qemu > > sources or even non striped qemu binary. > > If you don't have qemu sources than I really don't care. By definition you're I noticed that you don't care, but I do. > not going to be able to do anything useful even if you do figure out what the > problem is. Note that there's no requirement that you run gdb on the target I will be able to fix the bug if I'll figuring out what the problem is, so I don't see how this is not useful. > itself. Remote debug (e.g. via gdbserver on linux) is a well established > technique. > Client will not allow me near his infrastructure, he is nice enough to dump device state for me if it's simple. > Likewise for debugging stripped production binaries, my answer is "don't do > that". There are very rare cases where a bug goes away on a debug build, but > in those cases any instrumentation you add is also liable to make the bug go > away. > Have you sees a real production environment and tried to resolve real customer bugs? Just asking. -- Gleb.