[cgl_discussion] Re: sanity check for KGDB?

george anzinger george at mvista.com
Fri Oct 4 11:00:32 PDT 2002


Andy Pfiffer wrote:
> 
> George,
> 
> FYI: I tried your diff against the head of the tree (whatever it looked
> like yesterday afternoon) and it went in cleanly.  I did not try to test
> kgdb (something that went into the tree yesterday seems to have broken
> the compile of aic7xxx_linux.c...oh look, it seems to be fixed now...)
> 
> As far as a config lockout for kdb -or- kgdb (but not both), Randy
> suggested that we might look at the USB UHCI config option as an
> example.  I believe the relevant sample looks like this:
> 
>     comment 'USB Controllers'
>     if [ "$CONFIG_USB_UHCI_ALT" != "y" ]; then
>        dep_tristate '  UHCI (Intel PIIX4, VIA, ...) support'
>     CONFIG_USB_UHCI $CONFIG_USB
>     fi
>     if [ "$CONFIG_USB_UHCI" != "y" ]; then
>        dep_tristate '  UHCI Alternate Driver (JE) support'
>     CONFIG_USB_UHCI_ALT $CONFIG_USB
>     else
>        define_bool CONFIG_USB_UHCI_ALT n
>     fi
> 
> Could we do something similar, say CONFIG_KERNEL_DEBUGGER, and then have
> mutually exclusive options (as above) for CONFIG_KERNEL_KDB and
> CONFIG_KERNEL_KGDB?
> 
I will look at this.  I think I may want to check in with
out this for the first go round.  I think the deadline is
soon, is it not?

Meanwhile, I am trying to catch up to the 2.5 train to drop
HRT on it.  It keeps pulling out just when I need it to stay
put for a bit :(
-- 
George Anzinger   george at mvista.com
High-res-timers: 
http://sourceforge.net/projects/high-res-timers/
Preemption patch:
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/rml



More information about the cgl_discussion mailing list