* Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > thanks Jason, i have applied your cleanups to x86.git.
>
> I don't recall having actually seen the kgdb patches recently. Have
> they had a suitable level of review?
it was posted three months ago to lkml (the upteenth time) and we picked
it up into x86.git a month ago. KGDB has been problem-free in x86.git
ever since.
> In particular, as the plan is to migrate all kgdb-enabled
> architectures onto the generic kgdb core (yes?), have the owners of
> the eligible architectures actually taken a look at what we'll be
> asking of them?
at least as far as x86.git went the arch impact was refreshingly small.
There was some feedback that was addressed by Jason. (If any feedback is
still unaddressed then let us know - or if there are any new comments
i'm sure they will be addressed prompty - please keep the comments
coming!)
As more architectures enable support for KGDB, any specific objections
can and should be addressed on that level. (That's how we did it for
genirq and dynticks and that went far better than "address all
architecture concerns at once" - which delays merges forever. We'd still
be discussing irq flows versus flat irqs and clockevents versus drivers
if we did it like that.)
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
