lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Mar]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [GIT PULL v4.6] MDB Linux Kernel Debugger x86/x86_64
From
On 3/25/16, Jeffrey Merkey <jeffmerkey@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/25/16, Jeffrey Merkey <jeffmerkey@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 3/25/16, Jeffrey Merkey <jeffmerkey@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 3/25/16, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> * Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Joe,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 16:57:03 -0700 Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > On Mon, 2016-03-14 at 17:50 -0600, Jeffrey Merkey wrote:
>>>>> > > The following changes since commit
>>>>> > > b562e44f507e863c6792946e4e1b1449fbbac85d:
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > Linux 4.5 (2016-03-13 21:28:54 -0700)
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > are available in the git repository at:
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > https://github.com/jeffmerkey/linux.git tags/mdb-v4.5-signed
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > for you to fetch changes up to
>>>>> > > 2e9c184e1215dca2b4c59c347f40a0986b8e7460:
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > Add MDB Debugger to linux v4.5 (2016-03-14 15:17:44 -0600)
>>>>> >
>>>>> > If Linus doesn't pull this, Stephen, could you please add this
>>>>> > tree to -next so it has some testing and validation done?
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, I really need a request from the ongoing maintainer and also
>>>>> some
>>>>> indication of which kernel release (if any) it is likely to be merged
>>>>> into ...
>>>>
>>>> So neither the x86 nor other affected maintainers have acked these
>>>> changes
>>>> or have
>>>> agreed to merge it - in fact there are outstanding NAKs against this
>>>> tree,
>>>> which
>>>> were not mentioned in the pull request.
>>>>
>>>> Here's one of the objections by me:
>>>>
>>>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/1/29/64
>>>>
>>>> ... which technical objections were replied to by Jeff Merkey by
>>>> accusing
>>>> me
>>>> of
>>>> trolling:
>>>>
>>>> "You were not included on the post since you are not a maintainer of
>>>> watchdog.c
>>>> so I am confused as to why you are nacking and trolling me on
>>>> something
>>>> not in
>>>> your area."
>>>>
>>>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/1/29/397
>>>>
>>>> So this tree is very far from being ready and I'm not convinced we want
>>>> to
>>>> merge
>>>> it in its current form. If we merge bits of it then we want to merge it
>>>> via
>>>> the
>>>> x86 tree, not a separate tree.
>>>>
>>>> In fact I also have more fundamental objections as well, such as the
>>>> question of
>>>> unnecessary code duplication: this new MDB debugger overlaps in
>>>> functionality with
>>>> the already in-tree kgdb+KDB live kernel debugger approach:
>>>>
>>>> I don't think we want to see two overlapping solutions in this area,
>>>> both
>>>> of
>>>> which
>>>> are inferior in their own ways. If then the KDB frontend should be
>>>> improved:
>>>>
>>>> features such as disassembler output, more commands and usability
>>>> improvements
>>>> that can and should be added to the KDB front-end instead. I see
>>>> nothing
>>>> in
>>>> this
>>>> patch that couldn't be added to KDB/KGDB.
>>>>
>>>> All in one, I'd much rather like to see a gradual set of improvement
>>>> patches
>>>> to
>>>> KDB, to improve live kernel debugging, than this kind of monolithic,
>>>> arch
>>>> dependent duplication of functionality.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Ingo
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Ingo,
>>>
>>> Adding the disassembler to kgb/kgdb would not be all that
>>> straightforward. the architecture of kgdb/kdb does not support it --
>>> it would be significant rewrite of kdb -- in fact, it would have to be
>>> completely restructured . There are also as you point out some
>>> patches in the debugger you nacked. but removing these is easy.
>>>
>>> I also would have to go to whomever is maintaining kdb and to be
>>> honest, I am not all that interested in doing a bunch of work only to
>>> have it rejected or ignored, so the "bait and switch" game of saying
>>> "Please do X for us and we'll think about adding Y" isn't something I
>>> am going to waste my time on. Linux has more than one file system,
>>> more than one ethernet card driver, so there is no reason it can have
>>> more than one debugger.
>>>
>>> Kdb locks up a lot due to the design of it's smp roundup code for
>>> stoping processors, it's a different design totally.
>>>
>>> If you want me to do these things I would need free reign and to be
>>> honest, kdb is nowhere near as complete as mdb is.
>>>
>>> All that being said if you want me to do as you ask then you need to
>>> show me that you are serious about taking work I do for these areas.
>>>
>>> Jeff
>>
>>
>> In simple terms if you pull mdb as a branch to the x86 tree then I
>> will do whatever you ask me to do to integrate it into kdb. You have
>> to accept the code as is to show me you are serious, then I will adapt
>> it however you ask me to.
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>
> I went back and checked the code and as it turns out, none of the
> patches you nak'd are in the current branch, there are different
> patches there now. There are two patches you ignored that are in it,
> but no record of a Nak for either of them.
>
>
> Jeff
>


Signed-Off-By: Jeffrey Merkey <jeffmerkey@gmail.com>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-03-26 00:41    [W:0.071 / U:0.980 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site