lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Mar]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [Kgdb-bugreport] [PATCH] Kill kgdb_serial
Date
On Wednesday 03 Mar 2004 8:46 pm, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 11:13:02AM +0530, Amit S. Kale wrote:
> > On Wednesday 03 Mar 2004 5:16 am, George Anzinger wrote:
> > > Tom Rini wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 11:31:43PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > >>Hi!
> > > >>
> > > >>>>Tom Rini wrote:
> > > >>>>>Hello. The following interdiff kills kgdb_serial in favor of
> > > >>>>> function names. This only adds a weak function for
> > > >>>>> kgdb_flush_io, and documents when it would need to be provided.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>It looks like you are also dumping any notion of building a kernel
> > > >>>> that can choose which method of communication to use for kgdb at
> > > >>>> run time. Is this so?
> > > >>>
> > > >>>Yes, as this is how Andrew suggested we do it. It becomes quite
> > > >>> ugly if you try and allow for any 2 of 3 methods.
> > > >>
> > > >>I do not think that having kgdb_serial is so ugly. Are there any
> > > >> other uglyness associated with that?
> > > >
> > > > More precisely:
> > > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2004/2/11/224
> > >
> > > Andrew seems to be comming from the point of view of a developer rather
> > > than a developer/ maintainer.
> > >
> > > So, the counter argument is the user who is sending the thing into the
> > > field and wants to send just one binary kernel to all locations. But
> > > then he needs to debug some problem that will work fine over the lan
> > > and later one that requires an early connection which the lan can not,
> > > as yet, do. I agree that for you or me, this is not an issue, but what
> > > of the IT folks...
> >
> > This is the same reason specifying 8250 parameters on a kernel command
> > line is good. If one builds a different kernel for each test machine,
> > fixing kgdb interface parameters during a build doesn't cause any
> > problems. I don't think compiling different kernels is good when you have
> > more than 2 machines (of same architecture). It's much easier to build a
> > single kernel with drivers required by all of them and then boot them
> > with kgdb as and when required with interface parameters coming from
> > grug.conf (or equivalent on other archs).
>
> But that's not what you get with kgdb_serial. You get the possibility
> of serial from point A to B and you will have eth from point B onward,
> if compiled in. With an arch serial driver you get the possibility of
> serial (or arch serial or whatever) from point A to B and eth from point
> B onward, if compiled in.

I was just providing an anology.
Yes. With kgdb_serial, one can switch an interface on the fly.

>
> > kgdb_serial isn't ugly. It's just a function switch, similar to several
> > of them in the kernel. ppc is ugly, but that's anyway the case because of
> > so many varieties of ppc. If we are trying to make ppc code clean, it
> > makes more sense to move this weak function thing into ppc specific files
> > IMHO.
>
> I think you missed the point. The problem isn't with providing weak
> functions, the problem is trying to set the function pointer. PPC
> becomes quite clean since the next step is to kill off
> PPC_SIMPLE_SERIAL and just have kgdb_read/write_debug_char in the
> relevant serial drivers.

We can still have one single hardcoded function pointer for ppc and manage the
rest in ppc specific files.

-Amit

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:01    [W:0.065 / U:3.616 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site