[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200808070016.49585.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 00:16:49 +1000
From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
To: Bill Davidsen <davidsen@....com>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, jmerkey@...fmountaingroup.com,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>,
Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] Merkey's Kernel Debugger
On Wednesday 06 August 2008 23:11, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> Andi Kleen wrote:
> > Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.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
>
> That idea sounds familiar, the "suspend2" response, when something new
> and significantly different is offered, instead of putting it in and
> letting people choose in configuration, take the position that what is
> there is good enough, and if the author of the new solution will just
> drop all their ideas and slap some band-aids on the existing code it
> will be "gooder enough" without actually offering people a choice of
> something different.
No. First try to integrate them together so you have the best of both
from one code base is what I was saying. I specifically said if they
are significantly different and can't be reconciled then it could be
merged.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists