On Sun, Aug 07, 2005 at 10:48:02AM +1000, Keith Owens wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 14:39:00 +0200,
> Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > That doesn't make much sense here. tasklet will only run when interrupts
> >> > are enabled, and that is much later. You could move it to there.
> >>
>
On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 14:39:00 +0200,
Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > That doesn't make much sense here. tasklet will only run when interrupts
>> > are enabled, and that is much later. You could move it to there.
>>
>> Where? Keep in mind it's really only x86_64 that isn't able to break
On Thu, Aug 04, 2005 at 08:56:32PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 04, 2005 at 08:06:36AM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> > >
> > > Why can't you run on x86-64 early?
> >
> > As I said earlier:
> > "
> > > If you want to run gdb earlier you need to do it without a tasklet.
> >
> > We really wou
On Thu, Aug 04, 2005 at 08:06:36AM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> >
> > Why can't you run on x86-64 early?
>
> As I said earlier:
> "
> > If you want to run gdb earlier you need to do it without a tasklet.
>
> We really would like to try again once stacks are setup (IOW, once
> if ((&__get_cpu_var(in
On Thu, Aug 04, 2005 at 04:28:06PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 04, 2005 at 07:14:37AM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 04, 2005 at 04:06:20PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 04, 2005 at 07:04:45AM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Aug 04, 2005 at 02:39:00PM +0200, A
On Thu, Aug 04, 2005 at 07:14:37AM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 04, 2005 at 04:06:20PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 04, 2005 at 07:04:45AM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 04, 2005 at 02:39:00PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > > > > That doesn't make much sense here. task
On Thu, Aug 04, 2005 at 04:06:20PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 04, 2005 at 07:04:45AM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 04, 2005 at 02:39:00PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > > > That doesn't make much sense here. tasklet will only run when
> > > > > interrupts
> > > > > are enabled
On Thu, Aug 04, 2005 at 07:04:45AM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 04, 2005 at 02:39:00PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > > That doesn't make much sense here. tasklet will only run when interrupts
> > > > are enabled, and that is much later. You could move it to there.
> > >
> > > Where? Keep
On Thu, Aug 04, 2005 at 02:39:00PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > That doesn't make much sense here. tasklet will only run when interrupts
> > > are enabled, and that is much later. You could move it to there.
> >
> > Where? Keep in mind it's really only x86_64 that isn't able to break
> > sooner
> > That doesn't make much sense here. tasklet will only run when interrupts
> > are enabled, and that is much later. You could move it to there.
>
> Where? Keep in mind it's really only x86_64 that isn't able to break
> sooner.
The local_irq_enable() call in init/main.c:start_kernel()
If you w
On Wed, Aug 03, 2005 at 03:05:31PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> Only reading the changes outside kgdb.c
>
> > +
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_KGDB
> > + /*
> > +* Has KGDB been told to break as soon as possible?
> > +*/
> > + if (kgdb_initialized == -1)
> > + tasklet_schedule(&kgdb
Only reading the changes outside kgdb.c
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_KGDB
> + /*
> + * Has KGDB been told to break as soon as possible?
> + */
> + if (kgdb_initialized == -1)
> + tasklet_schedule(&kgdb_tasklet_breakpoint);
That doesn't make much sense here. tasklet will
CC: Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Amit S Kale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
This adds support for the x86_64 architecture. In addition to what was noted
in the core-lite patch about stuff outside of new files, we add -g0 to
compiling of syscalls.o as otherwise we run into problems when debugging
modules,
13 matches
Mail list logo
