Hi Ingo, On Fri, 25 Mar 2016 09:36:21 +0100 Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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 for your input clarifying the situation. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kbuild" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
