Messages in this thread | | | From | Stephen Boyd <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/4] scripts/gdb: Add rb tree iterating utilities | Date | Tue, 26 Mar 2019 13:39:00 -0700 |
| |
Quoting Jan Kiszka (2019-03-26 10:21:21) > On 26.03.19 18:05, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > Quoting Kieran Bingham (2019-03-26 01:52:10) > >> > >> Do you foresee any similar issue here? Or is the corresponding RB code > >> in the kernel fairly 'stable'? > >> > >> > >> Please could we make sure whomever maintains the RBTree code is aware of > >> the python implementation? > >> > >> That said, MAINTAINERS doesn't actually seem to list any ownership over > >> the rb-tree code, and get_maintainers.pl [0] seems to be pointing at > >> Andrew as the probable route in for that code so perhaps that's already > >> in place :D > > > > I don't think that the rb tree implementation is going to change. It > > feels similar to the list API. I suppose this problem of keeping things > > in sync is a more general problem than just data-structures changing. > > The only solution I can offer is to have more testing and usage of these > > scripts. Unless gdb can "simulate" or run arbitrary code for us then I > > think we're stuck reimplementing kernel internal code in gdb scripts so > > that we can get debug info out. > > > > Could we possibly leave some link in form of comment in the related headers or > implementations? Won't magically solve the problem but at least increase changes > that author actually read them when they start changing the C implementations. >
Sure. Can you propose some sort of patch against the 'list' implementation for this? I'd like to just use whatever policy is decided here.
| |