Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932220AbYBGUBF (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Feb 2008 15:01:05 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1760246AbYBGUAs (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Feb 2008 15:00:48 -0500 Received: from phunq.net ([64.81.85.152]:42563 "EHLO moonbase.phunq.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759342AbYBGUAq (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Feb 2008 15:00:46 -0500 From: Daniel Phillips To: Jan Kiszka Subject: Re: [git pull] x86 arch updates for v2.6.25 Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 12:00:18 -0800 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5 Cc: Andrew Morton , Phil Oester , Linus Torvalds , Maxim Levitsky , Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner , "H. Peter Anvin" , Jason Wessel References: <20080130011550.GA31853@elte.hu> <20080204205412.466a883c.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <47A9A356.8080400@siemens.com> In-Reply-To: <47A9A356.8080400@siemens.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200802071200.19533.phillips@phunq.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2409 Lines: 46 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@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/