Hello Jason, > Do you think you can try the patch below?
Sure - I'll give it a go this afternoon. > It seems we might not need to change to using the atomic_add_return(0,...) > because using the > atomic_inc() and atomic_dec() will end up using the memory barriers. The fix I posted to the LKML here: http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/3/9/260 fixed the issue for me, but your patch seems more general [although maybe overkill?]. > I would certainly rather fix kgdb vs mucking with the internals of > cpu_relax(). I think that's the general consensus. I was worried about changing the general KGDB code to fix an ARM specific problem, but it turns out that the problem is an issue of semantics. I'll let you know whether your patch fixes the problems for me. Will ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev _______________________________________________ Kgdb-bugreport mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kgdb-bugreport
