Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 18:40:09 +0100 (BST) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> To: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> Cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Nate Lawson <nate@root.org>, Olivier Houchard <cognet@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/ddb db_command.c db_output.c Message-ID: <20051003183854.Q92333@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <20051003171854.GA18710@soaustin.net> References: <43416038.6020701@root.org> <93558.1128359003@critter.freebsd.dk> <20051003171854.GA18710@soaustin.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 3 Oct 2005, Mark Linimon wrote: > On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 07:03:23PM +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >> There are pro etc con for both methods. Once a dump has been sitting >> in a PR for a year, very few people tend to have compatible info >> tools available. > > The counterpoint would be that after a dump has been sitting in a PR for > a year, the source base will often have drifted so much that any prior > investigative work needs to be re-run. > > I'm hardly arguing against either solution here -- anything that we can > do to cut out one email round-trip on e.g. the i386/kern PRs can only > help us. After the PR has been sitting there for a year or two, trying to decide if it's the same bug can be quite difficult if the submitter didn't know which of a dozen DDB commands to type, or know how to try to extract kernel debug information using gdb. I'm not saying this is a substitute for a full dump, but that in many situations, I would get more rather than less information as a result of what we're talking about. Robert N M Watson
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20051003183854.Q92333>