Messages in this thread |  | | From | Daniel Phillips <> | Subject | Re: Availability of kdb | Date | Wed, 06 Sep 2000 22:54:52 +0200 |
| |
Linus Torvalds wrote: > > And quite frankly, for most of the real problems (as opposed to the stupid > bugs - of which there are many, as the latest crap with "truncate()" has > shown us) a debugger doesn't much help. And the real problems are what I > worry about. The rest is just details. It will get fixed eventually.
Yes, no doubt you agree that stepping through the code with a source level debugger even once would have caught this one:
> >> Code; c012cae6 <block_truncate_page+d2/1c8> <===== >> 0: 8b 00 movl (%eax),%eax <===== > >Offset 0 is ->b_next... Huh? It should be ->b_this_page, no? >
But that fits with your argument that debugging the kernel should not be easy, so there is no inconsistency. As long as having the kernel progress quickly doesn't matter to you, there's no inconsistency there either. It progresses fast enough for me. Right now, I'm debugging exactly the way you like to, and by coincidence, exactly the same code. If I wanted to, I could install sgi's kdb patch and do this more efficiently, but what the heck. Maybe tomorrow. I'm more than adequately entertained. I'm fortunate to be in the position where rapid forward progress just doesn't affect my paycheck. I can think about the things I like to think about, work on the problems that interest me.
I have a dream job. Others are not so fortunate.
-- Daniel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |