On Wednesday 06 August 2008 23:11, Bill Davidsen wrote:
quoted text
> Andi Kleen wrote:
> > Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> writes:
> >> Seriously? Because it doesn't seem to have had enough peer review,
> >> it hasn't had widespread testing in somewhere like linux-next or
> >> -mm, and we already have kgdb so you have to also explain why you
> >> can't improve kgdb in the areas it trails mdb.
> >>
> >> But the ideal outcome would be if you could contribute patches to
> >> kgdb to the point where it is as good as mdb. It is already in the
>
> That idea sounds familiar, the "suspend2" response, when something new
> and significantly different is offered, instead of putting it in and
> letting people choose in configuration, take the position that what is
> there is good enough, and if the author of the new solution will just
> drop all their ideas and slap some band-aids on the existing code it
> will be "gooder enough" without actually offering people a choice of
> something different.

No. First try to integrate them together so you have the best of both
from one code base is what I was saying. I specifically said if they
are significantly different and can't be reconciled then it could be
merged.
--
unsubscribe notice
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/