From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Sep 18 20:49:46 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4C5A106564A; Sat, 18 Sep 2010 20:49:46 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from avg@freebsd.org) Received: from citadel.icyb.net.ua (citadel.icyb.net.ua [212.40.38.140]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BACC48FC15; Sat, 18 Sep 2010 20:49:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from porto.topspin.kiev.ua (porto-e.starpoint.kiev.ua [212.40.38.100]) by citadel.icyb.net.ua (8.8.8p3/ICyb-2.3exp) with ESMTP id XAA11682; Sat, 18 Sep 2010 23:49:44 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from avg@freebsd.org) Received: from localhost.topspin.kiev.ua ([127.0.0.1]) by porto.topspin.kiev.ua with esmtp (Exim 4.34 (FreeBSD)) id 1Ox4Lv-000DaR-VM; Sat, 18 Sep 2010 23:49:44 +0300 Message-ID: <4C9525E7.3030804@freebsd.org> Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2010 23:49:43 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD amd64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100912 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Attilio Rao References: <4C94A138.8050905@icyb.net.ua> <4C9507D1.3010008@icyb.net.ua> <4C950C48.6020600@freebsd.org> <4C95214A.3070600@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: KDB_TRACE and no backend X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2010 20:49:46 -0000 on 18/09/2010 23:35 Attilio Rao said the following: > It is still missing checking on opt_stack.h Yes, thanks, fixed it in my tree. > Besides, I'd reconsider having KDB_TRACE explanation in ddb(4) manpage > (right now it is rightly there because it is DDB specific only, as > long as it offers the backend, but with your change it is a global > functionality. Not sure if it worths changing it but however you may > have more opinions). It seems that we don't have kdb(4) ? -- Andriy Gapon