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 (
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

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 

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.


Reply via email to