What if no Mahdist revolt of 1881-1898? Would Sudan be an integral part of 20th and 21st century Egypt?

[raharris1973]

What if there was somehow no Mahdist revolt of 1881-1898? The Mahdi is killed early before gaining any fame, any revolts in Sudan remain scattered and local in scale, and never cause Egyptian troops to quit the whole of Sudan. Egyptian forces never lose control of Khartoum to any uprisings for more than a year. It doesn't take a whole big Kitchener expedition by the British, a decade after martyrdom of another British General (Gordon) and Egyptian force, to reclaim Sudan. Would the result be that instead of the special administration of "Anglo-Egyptian Sudan" which later, in 1956, simply became independent "Sudan" would simply remain multiple southern provinces of the Egyptian Khedivate and then Kingdom and ultimately Republic, through the 20th and 21st century? Could Egypt hold all Sudan, north and south, down? Would it have to do any less in the Arab/Middle East sphere with additional Sudanese preoccupations? Or would the resources extracted make up for the resources expended? Would Egypt-Sudan have any broader strategic orientations or temptations in Africa towards Eritrea and Ethiopia (on Nile issues), or other African neighbors - Uganda, Kenya, Congo/Zaire, Central African Republic, Chad, over border security/resource disputes?

In the shorter run, continuous Egyptian control over the Sudan after 1881, once Egypt is puppeted by Britain from 1882, should advantage Britain against French and Italian rivals, and perhaps German, to at least some small degree. It would preempt the events of the Fashoda Affair by allowing Britain to project influence via Egypt to that spot well in advance of French arrival. What effects might that have? Does that leave any room or likelihood for further British expansion into areas that became Chad/French Equatorial Africa? Or German Tanganyika? Or conflict with and expansion into Abyssinia, possibly in alliance with Italy?