On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 04:15:06PM +0100, Christopher Covington wrote: > On 06/24/2013 10:53 AM, Will Deacon wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 03:39:09PM +0100, Christopher Covington wrote: > >> Hi Will, > >> > >> On 06/24/2013 10:04 AM, Will Deacon wrote: > >> [...] > >> > >>> What's the advantage of this approach, other than you get an extra byte's > >>> worth of PID? > >> > >> In my view, the real advantage is that the the PID is located where people > >> reading ARM Architecture Reference Manual are told they can find it. > > > > Perhaps, but I'd usually expect a debugger or trace tools to do something > > with the PID, and they likely expect it to be shifted, so you can't really > > win. > > But reading and implementing the architecture *is* winning! LOL. I'll file a > ticket with the architecture folks and see what they think.
...aaand that came full circle :) I think the conclusion is that Linux PID != CONTEXTIDR.PROCID, so there's no architectural issue here. I'm just trying to keep it easy for the tools. Will -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
