[PATCH 00/16] MAINTAINERS: Include GDB scripts under their relevant subsystems

[Jan Kiszka]

On 26.06.25 18:17, Liam R. Howlett wrote:
> * Florian Fainelli <florian.fainelli at broadcom.com> [250625 19:13]:
>> Linux has a number of very useful GDB scripts under scripts/gdb/linux/*
>> that provide OS awareness for debuggers and allows for debugging of a
>> variety of data structures (lists, timers, radix tree, mapletree, etc.)
>> as well as subsystems (clocks, devices, classes, busses, etc.).
>>
>> These scripts are typically maintained in isolation from the subsystem
>> that they parse the data structures and symbols of, which can lead to
>> people playing catch up with fixing bugs or updating the script to work
>> with updates made to the internal APIs/objects etc. Here are some
>> recents examples:
>>
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250601055027.3661480-1-tony.ambardar@gmail.com/
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250619225105.320729-1-florian.fainelli@broadcom.com/
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250625021020.1056930-1-florian.fainelli@broadcom.com/
>>
>> This patch series is intentionally split such that each subsystem
>> maintainer can decide whether to accept the extra
>> review/maintenance/guidance that can be offered when GDB scripts are
>> being updated or added.
> 
> I don't see why you think it was okay to propose this in the way you
> have gone about it.  Looking at the mailing list, you've been around for
> a while.
> 
> The file you are telling me about seems to be extremely new and I needed
> to pull akpm/mm-new to discover where it came from.. because you never
> Cc'ed me on the file you are asking me to own.
> 
> I'm actually apposed to the filename you used for the script you want me
> to own.
> 
> I consider myself a low-volume email maintainer and I get enough useless
> emails about apparent trivial fixes that end up causing significant
> damage if they are not dealt with.  So I take care not to sign up for
> more time erosion from meaningful forward progress on tasks I hope to
> have high impact.  I suspect you know that, but I don't know you so I
> don't want to assume.
> 
> Is there anything else you might want to share to entice me to maintain
> this file?  Perhaps there's a documentation pointer that shows how
> useful it is and why I should use it?
> 
> Right now, I have no idea what that file does or how to even check if
> that file works today, so I cannot sign on to maintain it.
> 
> If you want to depend on APIs, this should probably be generated in a
> way that enables updates.  And if that's the case, then why even have a
> file at all and just generate it when needed?  Or, at least, half
> generated and finished by hand?
> 
> Maybe this is the case but scripts/gdb doesn't have any documentation in
> there, there's no Documentation/scripts or Documentation/gdb either.
> 
> Can you please include more details on the uses of these files?  Failing
> that, perhaps you could point to any documentation?

FWIW, I once wrote
Documentation/process/debugging/gdb-kernel-debugging.rst. Hope it didn't
age too much.

Jan

-- 
Siemens AG, Foundational Technologies
Linux Expert Center