On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 11:54:59AM +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 04, 2010 at 12:21:45PM +0530, K.Prasad wrote:
>
> > Meanwhile I tested the per-cpu breakpoints with the new emulate_step
> > patch (refer linuxppc-dev message-id:
> > 20100602112903.gb30...@brick.ozlabs.ibm.com) and they
On Fri, Jun 04, 2010 at 12:21:45PM +0530, K.Prasad wrote:
> Meanwhile I tested the per-cpu breakpoints with the new emulate_step
> patch (refer linuxppc-dev message-id:
> 20100602112903.gb30...@brick.ozlabs.ibm.com) and they continue to fail
> due to emulate_step() failure, in my case, on a "lwz r
On Wed, Jun 09, 2010 at 04:02:23PM +0530, K.Prasad wrote:
> (Given that it's your idea I've added your
> signed-off too).
Actually, you should never add someone else's signed-off-by unless
they specifically ask you to. The signed-off-by lines are supposed to
show the path that the patch took to
On Mon, Jun 07, 2010 at 09:25:59PM +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 07, 2010 at 12:33:51PM +0530, K.Prasad wrote:
>
> > Given that 'ptrace_bps' is used only for ptrace originated breakpoints
> > and that we return early i.e. before detecting extraneous interrupts
> > in hw_breakpoint_han
On Mon, Jun 07, 2010 at 12:33:51PM +0530, K.Prasad wrote:
> Given that 'ptrace_bps' is used only for ptrace originated breakpoints
> and that we return early i.e. before detecting extraneous interrupts
> in hw_breakpoint_handler() (as shown above) they shouldn't overlap each
> other. The following
On Fri, Jun 04, 2010 at 07:06:48PM +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 04, 2010 at 12:21:45PM +0530, K.Prasad wrote:
>
> > Meanwhile I tested the per-cpu breakpoints with the new emulate_step
> > patch (refer linuxppc-dev message-id:
> > 20100602112903.gb30...@brick.ozlabs.ibm.com) and they
On Fri, Jun 04, 2010 at 12:21:45PM +0530, K.Prasad wrote:
> Meanwhile I tested the per-cpu breakpoints with the new emulate_step
> patch (refer linuxppc-dev message-id:
> 20100602112903.gb30...@brick.ozlabs.ibm.com) and they continue to fail
> due to emulate_step() failure, in my case, on a "lwz r
On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 09:33:16PM +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 12:09:24PM +0530, K.Prasad wrote:
>
> > Please find a new set of patches that have the following changes.
>
> Thanks. There are a couple of minor things still remaining (dangling
> put_cpu in arch_unreg
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 12:09:24PM +0530, K.Prasad wrote:
> Please find a new set of patches that have the following changes.
Thanks. There are a couple of minor things still remaining (dangling
put_cpu in arch_unregister_hw_breakpoint, plus I don't think reusing
current->thread.ptrace_bps
Hi All,
Please find a new set of patches that have the following changes.
Changelog - ver XXII
(Version XXI: linuxppc-dev ref:20100525091314.ga29...@in.ibm.com)
- Extraneous breakpoint exceptions are now properly handled; causative
instruction will be single-stepped
10 matches
Mail list logo
