On 09/16/2016 02:45 AM, Will Deacon wrote: > On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 01:32:19PM +0900, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 08:04:57AM -0500, Jason Wessel wrote: >>> I added the patch to kgdb-next after fixing up the context since it no >>> longer applied to the mainline ( >>> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/jwessel/kgdb.git/log/?h=kgdb-next). >>> If there is further discussion on the point above, another patch can be >>> added, but it I am assuming this is the way you desire it to work as >>> there are some other architectures that use the same behaviour. I do >>> not presently have any ARM64 hardware to validate this particular >>> change. >>> >>> I also added to the patch a "Cc: linux-stable <sta...@vger.kernel.org>" >>> so we can have this appear on some of the older kernels. >> Since Will asked me to split this patch into a few, I need some reworks >> to clarify which hunks in the patch are necessary for which version of >> kernel. > Yes, splitting the patch would be much better for sorting out the stable > backports too. Jason, please can you drop the patch for now? I don't mind > whether the end result goes via arm64 or kgdb, but we should at least both > agree on it first :)
Splitting it is a very wise idea so that we can have all the -stable kernels patched up with a working single step function. The separated patches can easily be tagged with the CC line examples as shown below: Cc: <sta...@vger.kernel.org> # 3.15.x- Cc: <sta...@vger.kernel.org> # 4.4 Cc: <sta...@vger.kernel.org> # 4.4-4.5 I had dropped the original patch. Cheers, Jason. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Kgdb-bugreport mailing list Kgdb-bugreport@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kgdb-bugreport
