Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 6 Sep 2000 20:58:00 -0400 (EDT) | From | Gregory Maxwell <> | Subject | Re: Availability of kdb |
| |
On Wed, 6 Sep 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > Ehh? And exactly _how_ would a debugger help it. > > > > Especially as Alan quoted an example of a driver bug that didn't get fixed > > for several months because the maintainer didn't have the hardware. > > > > What would a debugger have done? > > Let the end user give me essential answers on what was happening at the failure > point. Think of it as a crash dump tool with extra controls [snip]
If this is your primary argument for a kernel debugger, a 'crash dump tool with extra controls', then why not just cleanly implement a 'crash dump tool with extra controls'.
I would suspect that such a tool could be accomplished much much safely (both code maintenance wise, as well as runtime and source bloat) then a full kernel debugger. Interactive postmortem shouldn't require any support code or tooling floating about in unrelated parts of the kernel.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |