* Roland McGrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At any rate, I think it would be good if the hw breakpoint support in
> kgdb were chopped out into a separate patch. First make kgdb work
> with no code touching debug registers at all. Then a second patch can
> add the hw breakpoint support. Th
> You silently overwrite any user ptrace hw breakpoints right? To do it cleanly
> would still require a reservation frame work.
There was work underway on that before (hw_breakpoint). I'm not entirely
sure you want to use fancy stuff like that in kgdb. It's nice for kgdb to
be as self-contained
>
> > +/**
> > + * kgdb_arch_handle_exception - Handle architecture specific GDB packets.
>
> All the kerneldoc comments are useless if you don't add the file
> to Documentation/DocBook/*.tmpl
1) The content is valid no matter the formatting
2) It is a well known format
3) And it is widely used
On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 12:03:35AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > The synchronization code looks as bad as it was before.
First nobody answered the "kgdb clean enough for a module"
high level question yet. Is it good enough for that?
>
> i reworked and cleaned up all the kgdb locking code complet
4 matches
Mail list logo
