Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 15 Sep 2002 14:18:21 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 15 Sep 2002 14:18:21 -0400 Received: from nat-pool-rdu.redhat.com ([66.187.233.200]:44985 "EHLO devserv.devel.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 15 Sep 2002 14:18:20 -0400 Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 14:23:04 -0400 From: Pete Zaitcev To: Daniel Phillips Cc: Pete Zaitcev , linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [linux-usb-devel] Re: [BK PATCH] USB changes for 2.5.34 Message-ID: <20020915142304.A21363@devserv.devel.redhat.com> References:

<20020915020739.A22101@devserv.devel.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: ; from phillips@arcor.de on Sun, Sep 15, 2002 at 04:53:15PM +0200 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2681 Lines: 58 > From: Daniel Phillips > Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 16:53:15 +0200 > On Sunday 15 September 2002 08:07, Pete Zaitcev wrote: > > > From: Daniel Phillips > > > Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 07:10:00 +0200 > > > > >[...] > > > Let's try a different show of hands: How many users would be happier if > > > they knew that kernel developers are using modern techniques to improve > > > the quality of the kernel? > > > > I do not see how using a debugger improves a quality of the kernel. > > It improves my quality of life, that would be enough by itself. [...] >[...] > The answer to the question "is this sillyness slowing down development > and reducing the quality of the kernel?" is "yes". I don't have to > speculate about that any more, I've seen it enough with my own eyes. > Now ask yourself who the most productive hackers are today, and ask > yourself if they are using the good ol zen state blunt edged tools. OK, so you actually do not care about users getting happier. You should have added a smilie to the quote about the show of hands then. The agrument about your quality of life does hold some water, at least I do not doubt that kdb makes you and Andrew happier. This is a wonderful thing. I do strongly suspect though, that any gains you get on the productivity front are NOT going to be used to improve code quality. > Look, we tried the zen state thing. It didn't work. Think about the > madness in the period between 2.3 and 2.4, with one oops after another > reported to the list, each taking days or weeks to track down. [...] This has nothing to do with a debugger, this is a different topic. You actually want a crash dump analyzis tool, and so do I. So, let's discuss that. I happen to get e-mails with oops in USB callbacks pretty often, and they are always useless. It would be possible to track them if off-stack memory was saved, perhaps. However, to expect users to use debugger to collect this off-stack information is a delusion. This is why Red Hat stopped shipping kdb and started to ship netdump (or so I think, anyway). It is a much more effective tool for the crash analysis, and it can be operated by a user. I think it beats a debugger fair and square. N.B. The data that netdump collects may be an image to be examined by a debugger (such as gdb), together with dedicated analysis tools. That's entirely different debugger, so no hypocrisicy here. -- Pete - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/