On Mon, 22 Feb 2021 at 19:17, Daniel Thompson <daniel.thomp...@linaro.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 06:33:18PM +0530, Sumit Garg wrote: > > On Mon, 22 Feb 2021 at 17:35, Daniel Thompson > > <daniel.thomp...@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 05:39:58PM +0530, Sumit Garg wrote: > > > > Simplify kdb commands registration via using linked list instead of > > > > static array for commands storage. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Sumit Garg <sumit.g...@linaro.org> > > > > --- > > > > > > > > Changes in v4: > > > > - Fix kdb commands memory allocation issue prior to slab being available > > > > with an array of statically allocated commands. Now it works fine with > > > > kgdbwait. > > > > > > I'm not sure this is the right approach. It's still faking dynamic usage > > > when none of the callers at this stage of the boot actually are dynamic. > > > > > > > Okay, as an alternative I came across dbg_kmalloc()/dbg_kfree() as well but > > ... > > Last time I traced these functions I concluded that this heap can be > removed if the symbol handling code is refactored a little.
Yeah, I also observed symbol handing code being the only user. So, I will try to rework that code and see if we can get rid of this custom heap. > I'd be > *seriously* reluctant to add any new callers... which I assume from your > later comments you can live with ;-) . > Yes that's fine with me. -Sumit > > Daniel.
