Re: [git pull] x86 arch updates for v2.6.25

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...>, Phil Oester <kernel@...>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...>, Maxim Levitsky <maximlevitsky@...>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...>, <linux-kernel@...>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...>, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...>, Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@...>
Date: Thursday, February 7, 2008 - 4:00 pm

On Wednesday 06 February 2008 04:08, Jan Kiszka wrote:

I do pretty much all my debugging with printk, not just because it is a 
pain to go find a working kgdb patch, but also because tools like uml 
make printk style debugging really fast.  That said, I often find my 
development time sinking away into tedious activity like putting in a 
printk after each line of code, just to find out where some bad thing 
started going bad.  At that point a source level debugger would save me 
a bunch of time and I would not have to remove the printks afterwards.  

However, if the time required to patch the kernel with kgdb is more than 
the time spent putting in prinks then I will just grit my teeth and put 
in the printks.  Never mind that I will end up going through the printk 
insertion process many times, while only needing to apply the kgdb 
patch once.  Ahem, that is once per kernel version, and I change kernel 
versions like I change socks (that means "often" for the wags among 
you.)

One thing I like to do with a source level debugger besides debugging is 
take a walk once through some new algorithm I have implemented.  Not 
because I think there is a bug, but more for the same reason that I 
like to do a side by side walkthrough of new code with another 
developer before ever running it.  This just provides a different 
perspective, so that perhaps some little blemishes, inefficiencies and 
redundancies will show themselves, and the code quality usually 
improves because of it.

Not that this is the only way I review my own code, it is just another 
way.  More ways of reviewing code are better.  In this sense, the 
debugger is like a mechanical friend who always has time available to 
join in a side by side code review.

Regards,

Daniel
--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[git pull] x86 arch updates for v2.6.25, Ingo Molnar, (Tue Jan 29, 9:15 pm)
Re: [git pull] x86 arch updates for v2.6.25, Amit Shah, (Sat Feb 9, 10:11 am)
Re: [git pull] x86 arch updates for v2.6.25, Jiri Kosina, (Sun Feb 10, 8:30 am)
Re: [git pull] x86 arch updates for v2.6.25, Amit Shah, (Tue Feb 12, 3:16 am)
Re: [git pull] x86 arch updates for v2.6.25, Ingo Molnar, (Wed Feb 13, 4:56 am)
Re: [git pull] x86 arch updates for v2.6.25, Amit Shah, (Wed Feb 13, 6:19 am)
Re: [git pull] x86 arch updates for v2.6.25, Maxim Levitsky, (Mon Feb 4, 10:36 pm)
Re: [git pull] x86 arch updates for v2.6.25, Linus Torvalds, (Mon Feb 4, 11:27 pm)
Re: [git pull] x86 arch updates for v2.6.25, Andi Kleen, (Fri Feb 8, 1:00 pm)
Re: [git pull] x86 arch updates for v2.6.25, Jan Kiszka, (Fri Feb 8, 1:48 pm)
Re: [git pull] x86 arch updates for v2.6.25, Andi Kleen, (Fri Feb 8, 2:57 pm)
Re: [RFC][PATCH] KGDB: remove kgdb-own fault handling, Jason Wessel, (Fri Feb 8, 6:16 pm)
Re: [git pull] x86 arch updates for v2.6.25, Daniel Phillips, (Thu Feb 7, 3:20 pm)
Re: [git pull] x86 arch updates for v2.6.25, John Stoffel, (Tue Feb 5, 1:45 pm)
Re: [git pull] x86 arch updates for v2.6.25, H. Peter Anvin, (Tue Feb 5, 1:52 pm)
Re: [git pull] x86 arch updates for v2.6.25, Bernhard Kaindl, (Fri Feb 8, 2:24 pm)
Re: [git pull] x86 arch updates for v2.6.25, Phil Oester, (Tue Feb 5, 12:11 am)
Re: [git pull] x86 arch updates for v2.6.25, Christoph Hellwig, (Fri Feb 8, 12:48 am)
Re: [git pull] x86 arch updates for v2.6.25, Jan Kiszka, (Fri Feb 8, 5:51 am)
Re: [git pull] x86 arch updates for v2.6.25, Andrew Morton, (Tue Feb 5, 12:54 am)
Re: [git pull] x86 arch updates for v2.6.25, Jan Kiszka, (Wed Feb 6, 8:08 am)
Re: [git pull] x86 arch updates for v2.6.25, Daniel Phillips, (Thu Feb 7, 4:00 pm)
Re: [git pull] x86 arch updates for v2.6.25, Adrian Bunk, (Thu Jan 31, 11:57 am)
Re: [git pull] x86 arch updates for v2.6.25, Ingo Molnar, (Thu Jan 31, 12:00 pm)
Re: [git pull] x86 arch updates for v2.6.25, Adrian Bunk, (Thu Jan 31, 12:12 pm)
Re: [git pull] x86 arch updates for v2.6.25, Ingo Molnar, (Thu Jan 31, 12:15 pm)
Re: [git pull] x86 arch updates for v2.6.25, WANG Cong, (Thu Jan 31, 12:21 pm)
sparc compile error caused by x86 arch updates, Adrian Bunk, (Thu Jan 31, 12:29 pm)
Re: sparc compile error caused by x86 arch updates, Jeremy Fitzhardinge, (Thu Jan 31, 12:50 pm)
Re: sparc compile error caused by x86 arch updates, Ingo Molnar, (Thu Jan 31, 1:43 pm)
Re: sparc compile error caused by x86 arch updates, Adrian Bunk, (Thu Jan 31, 2:21 pm)
Re: sparc compile error caused by x86 arch updates, Ingo Molnar, (Thu Jan 31, 2:38 pm)
Re: sparc compile error caused by x86 arch updates, Jeremy Fitzhardinge, (Thu Jan 31, 1:55 pm)
Re: [git pull] x86 arch updates for v2.6.25, Adrian Bunk, (Thu Jan 31, 12:24 pm)
Re: [git pull] x86 arch updates for v2.6.25, Ingo Molnar, (Thu Jan 31, 12:46 pm)
Re: [git pull] x86 arch updates for v2.6.25, Jeremy Fitzhardinge, (Thu Jan 31, 12:52 pm)
Re: [git pull] x86 arch updates for v2.6.25, Ingo Molnar, (Thu Jan 31, 12:04 pm)
x86 arch updates also broke s390, Adrian Bunk, (Wed Jan 30, 8:33 pm)
Re: x86 arch updates also broke s390, Martin Schwidefsky, (Thu Jan 31, 5:34 am)
Re: x86 arch updates also broke s390, Ingo Molnar, (Fri Feb 1, 5:48 am)
Re: x86 arch updates also broke s390, Martin Schwidefsky, (Fri Feb 1, 5:54 am)
Re: x86 arch updates also broke s390, Ingo Molnar, (Fri Feb 1, 6:02 am)
Re: x86 arch updates also broke s390, Ingo Molnar, (Fri Feb 1, 5:52 am)
Re: x86 arch updates also broke s390, Ingo Molnar, (Thu Jan 31, 6:24 am)
Re: x86 arch updates also broke s390, Nick Piggin, (Thu Jan 31, 8:37 am)