lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Aug]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: [ANNOUNCE] Merkey's Kernel Debugger
    Date
    On Wednesday 06 August 2008 13:08, Andi Kleen wrote:
    > Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> writes:
    > > Seriously? Because it doesn't seem to have had enough peer review,
    > > it hasn't had widespread testing in somewhere like linux-next or
    > > -mm, and we already have kgdb so you have to also explain why you
    > > can't improve kgdb in the areas it trails mdb.
    > >
    > > But the ideal outcome would be if you could contribute patches to
    > > kgdb to the point where it is as good as mdb. It is already in the
    >
    > I don't think kgdb and a simple assembler debugger
    > are directly comparable. kgdb always requires a remote machine,
    > which has many advantages, but is also often very inconvenient
    > or impossible to arrange. An low overhead assembler debugger
    > can be always compiled in just in case.
    >
    > Also at least for the x86 port the debugger interfaces should
    > be general enough now (see die hooks as a "debug vfs") that it would
    > be quite possible to have a multitude of debuggers just using
    > them. In fact that's already the cases, kprobes and kgdb and
    > kdump are all kinds of debuggers using such hooks.
    >
    > As long as it doesn't impact the core code and the mdb
    > code itself is considered merge worthy and has clean interfaces
    > that would seem fine to me.It essentially would just live somewhere in
    > its own directory using the existing interfaces. My standard
    > test for seeing if a debugger has clean interfaces is to see
    > if it can be loaded as a module.
    >
    > There are enough different debugging styles around that offering
    > developers different tools of which they can pick whatever suits
    > them is not a bad idea. Also as everyone knows debugging
    > is often a major time eater and if more tools are available that
    > can only help the kernel.
    >
    > That said I haven't read the mdb code, not judging on its general
    > merge-worthiness or am really completely sure what are all the details
    > of a "netware style debugger", just a general high level comment on
    > debuggers. At least judging based on the patch sizes it at least
    > doesn't seem particularly bloated. But of course it would need full
    > proper review first.

    OK thanks for the info. I don't actually know debugger code as I
    said, so I wasn't against merging mdb if it offers things that
    kgdb fundamentally cannot.

    If so, then ensuring clean interfaces indeed would seem like a
    good first step to getting it merged.


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-08-06 07:53    [W:0.023 / U:0.068 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site