> On Sunday 15 September 2002 08:07, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
> > > From: Daniel Phillips <phillips@arcor.de>
> > > Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 07:10:00 +0200
> >
> > >[...]
> > > Let's try a different show of hands: How many users would be happier if
> > > they knew that kernel developers are using modern techniques to improve
> > > the quality of the kernel?
> >
> > I do not see how using a debugger improves a quality of the kernel.
>
> It improves my quality of life, that would be enough by itself. [...]
>[...]
> The answer to the question "is this sillyness slowing down development
> and reducing the quality of the kernel?" is "yes". I don't have to
> speculate about that any more, I've seen it enough with my own eyes.
> Now ask yourself who the most productive hackers are today, and ask
> yourself if they are using the good ol zen state blunt edged tools.
OK, so you actually do not care about users getting happier.
You should have added a smilie to the quote about the show
of hands then.
The agrument about your quality of life does hold some water,
at least I do not doubt that kdb makes you and Andrew happier.
This is a wonderful thing. I do strongly suspect though, that
any gains you get on the productivity front are NOT going to
be used to improve code quality.
> Look, we tried the zen state thing. It didn't work. Think about the
> madness in the period between 2.3 and 2.4, with one oops after another
> reported to the list, each taking days or weeks to track down. [...]
This has nothing to do with a debugger, this is a different topic.
You actually want a crash dump analyzis tool, and so do I.
So, let's discuss that. I happen to get e-mails with oops in USB
callbacks pretty often, and they are always useless. It would be
possible to track them if off-stack memory was saved, perhaps.
However, to expect users to use debugger to collect this off-stack
information is a delusion.
This is why Red Hat stopped shipping kdb and started to ship
netdump (or so I think, anyway). It is a much more effective
tool for the crash analysis, and it can be operated by a user.
I think it beats a debugger fair and square. N.B. The data
that netdump collects may be an image to be examined by a
debugger (such as gdb), together with dedicated analysis tools.
That's entirely different debugger, so no hypocrisicy here.
-- Pete
-
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/