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 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.
Where? Keep
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, 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
sooner.
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
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
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,
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.
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
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?
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
> >
> > 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
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 want to
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.
The
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 in mind it's
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, and that is
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. tasklet will
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, Andi Kleen
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
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 would like to try again
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)
> > +
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(_tasklet_breakpoint);
That doesn't make much sense here. tasklet will
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 only
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)
+
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
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,
26 matches
Mail list logo
