On Tue, 2004-11-02 at 20:18, Jack F Vogel wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 01:58:54PM +1100, Keith Owens wrote:
> > On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 16:33:37 -0700,
> > Steven Dake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >Keith & Jack,
> > >
> > >I am going to backport the kdb x86_64 patch to the 2.4 kernel. Any tips
> > >on what might not work with the kdb 4.3 patch (last 2.4 kernel patch)
> > >with 4.4 x86_64 backported?
> >
> > The main differences between v4.3 and v4.4 (IOW why I bumped the version number)
> >
> > * v4.4 no longer prints all tasks by default. It suppresses Idle and
> > system daeMon tasks, they are assumed to be irrelevant to most
> > debugging. Should not affect any architecture.
> >
> > * The serial console sequence changed from control-A to escape-KDB.
> > Should not affect any architecture unless you were already using a
> > different sequence.
> >
> > * Make set NOSECT=1 the default. 2.6 kernels do not have the data
> > required for useful section data, 2.4 kernels still do.
> >
> > * Add standard archkdb commands.
> >
> > * Big clean up and reorganisation of include/linux/{kdb,kdbprivate}.h,
> > with adjustments to include/asm-*/{kdb,kdbprivate}.h to suit.
> >
> > * Move bfd.h and ansidecl.h from arch/$(ARCH)/kdb to
> > include/asm-$(ARCH) and remove -I arch/$(ARCH)/kdb from Makefiles.
> >
> > * Move kdb_{get,put}userarea_size definitions to linux/kdb.h.
> >
> > The last three are the ones most likely to impact your backport.
> >
>
> I'm not sure if i have all the context of this email correct, if
> you mean you want to port the patch I did for the x86_64 architecture
> on the 2.6 kernel to 2.4 then its wrong-headed. There exists my
> patch for the 2.4.25 kernel that Keith has in the 4.3 directory.
> Is there some feature that it doesnt have you want?
>
My bad I didn't know you had already done a port of kdb for x86_64 to
2.4. But I only see ia64 in the 4.3 directory. Could you send me a
copy of the 2.4.25 patch for kdb you did?
Thanks!
-steve
> The code for 2.6 uses kernel hooks that are not in the 2.4 kernel,
> if they were I would probably port back that code myself :)
>
> The existing 2.4 patch could still be polished more I suppose but
> its not like a port is needed.
>
> Jack
>
---------------------------
Use http://oss.sgi.com/ecartis to modify your settings or to unsubscribe.
