On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 09:33:16PM +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 12:09:24PM +0530, K.Prasad wrote:
>
> > Please find a new set of patches that have the following changes.
>
> Thanks. There are a couple of minor things still remaining (dangling
> put_cpu in arch_unregister_hw_breakpoint, plus I don't think reusing
> current->thread.ptrace_bps the way you did in patch 5/5 is a good
> idea), but I think at this stage I'll put them in a tree together
> with my latest emulate_step version and then push them to Ben H and/or
> Ingo Molnar once I've done some testing.
>
> Paul.
Hi Paul,
Thanks for agreeing to put the patchset into a tree and push it
to the appropriate maintainers.
Meanwhile I tested the per-cpu breakpoints with the new emulate_step
patch (refer linuxppc-dev message-id:
20100602112903.gb30...@brick.ozlabs.ibm.com) and they continue to fail
due to emulate_step() failure, in my case, on a "lwz r0,0(r28)"
instruction.
About the latest patchset, given that we chose to ignore extraneous
interrupts for non-ptrace breakpoints, I thought that re-using
current->thread.ptrace_bps as a flag would be efficient than introducing
a new member in 'struct thread_struct' to do the same. I'm not sure if
you foresee any issues with that.
If so, I'd like to send a new patch (rather than a new version of the
complete patchset) to fix it along with the dangling put_cpu() in
arch_unregister_hw_breakpoint() (I forgot to remove parts of the code
between versions XIX and XX).
Thanks,
K.Prasad
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
