Hi - On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 08:29:27PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:It should not *unnecessarily* depend on those. It is your prerogative as a subsystem maintainer to make a guess about this. Others may make their own decisions differently, considering the small costs and potential benefits. Perhaps the kinds of bugs in your code, coupled with the kinds of customers who experience those bugs, make tolerable this means of diagnosis (requiring a reboot of their machines into a custom debugging kernel). The customers I have dealt with (and frankly, I too) need to diagnose problems on a live running system as much as possible. They don't run every kernel du jour, so they don't need the purely hypothetical tools that are dependent on a permanent set of markers. - FChE --
| Andrew Morton | -mm merge plans for 2.6.23 |
| Greg KH | [GIT PATCH] driver core patches against 2.6.24 |
| Bart Van Assche | Integration of SCST in the mainstream Linux kernel |
| david | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| Jarek Poplawski | [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 03/37] dccp: List management for new feature negotiation |
| Arjan van de Ven | Re: [GIT]: Networking |
| Auke Kok | [PATCH] e1000e: test MSI interrupts |
git: | |
