linux-kernel - Re: [git pull] x86 arch updates for v2.6.25

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <200802071200.19533.phillips@phunq.net>
Date:	Thu, 7 Feb 2008 12:00:18 -0800
From:	Daniel Phillips <phillips@...nq.net>
To:	Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Phil Oester <kernel@...uxace.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Maxim Levitsky <maximlevitsky@...il.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@...driver.com>
Subject: Re: [git pull] x86 arch updates for v2.6.25

On Wednesday 06 February 2008 04:08, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> While too many people consider a debugger as _the_ tool for kernel
> development, which it clearly isn't, it remains a fairly useful
> feature, and I don't see any regression, technically or
> organizationally, it may introduce to Linux. IMHO, it would be a pity
> if kgdb have to remain out off tree and may potentially fall back at
> quality levels that many of us had fought with in the past.

I do pretty much all my debugging with printk, not just because it is a 
pain to go find a working kgdb patch, but also because tools like uml 
make printk style debugging really fast.  That said, I often find my 
development time sinking away into tedious activity like putting in a 
printk after each line of code, just to find out where some bad thing 
started going bad.  At that point a source level debugger would save me 
a bunch of time and I would not have to remove the printks afterwards.  

However, if the time required to patch the kernel with kgdb is more than 
the time spent putting in prinks then I will just grit my teeth and put 
in the printks.  Never mind that I will end up going through the printk 
insertion process many times, while only needing to apply the kgdb 
patch once.  Ahem, that is once per kernel version, and I change kernel 
versions like I change socks (that means "often" for the wags among 
you.)

One thing I like to do with a source level debugger besides debugging is 
take a walk once through some new algorithm I have implemented.  Not 
because I think there is a bug, but more for the same reason that I 
like to do a side by side walkthrough of new code with another 
developer before ever running it.  This just provides a different 
perspective, so that perhaps some little blemishes, inefficiencies and 
redundancies will show themselves, and the code quality usually 
improves because of it.

Not that this is the only way I review my own code, it is just another 
way.  More ways of reviewing code are better.  In this sense, the 
debugger is like a mechanical friend who always has time available to 
join in a side by side code review.

Regards,

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