Re: [Patch 1/4] Allow arch-specific cleanup before breakpoint unregistration

2010-05-26 Thread K.Prasad
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 06:39:19AM -0500, Millton Miller wrote: On Tue, 25 May 2010 at 14:43:56 +0530, K.Prasad wrote: Certain architectures (such as PowerPC Book III S) have a need to cleanup data-structures before the breakpoint is unregistered. This patch introduces an arch-specific hook

Re: [Patch 1/4] Allow arch-specific cleanup before breakpoint unregistration

2010-05-26 Thread David Howells
K.Prasad pra...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote: My understanding is weak function definitions must appear in a different C file than their call sites to work on some toolchains. Atleast, there are quite a few precedents inside the Linux kernel for __weak functions being invoked from the file

Re: [Patch 1/4] Allow arch-specific cleanup before breakpoint unregistration

2010-05-26 Thread Michael Ellerman
On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 10:54 +0100, David Howells wrote: K.Prasad pra...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote: My understanding is weak function definitions must appear in a different C file than their call sites to work on some toolchains. Atleast, there are quite a few precedents inside the

Re: [Patch 1/4] Allow arch-specific cleanup before breakpoint unregistration

2010-05-26 Thread K.Prasad
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 10:54:41AM +0100, David Howells wrote: K.Prasad pra...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote: My understanding is weak function definitions must appear in a different C file than their call sites to work on some toolchains. Atleast, there are quite a few precedents

Re: [Patch 1/4] Allow arch-specific cleanup before breakpoint unregistration

2010-05-26 Thread Frederic Weisbecker
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 10:47:42PM +0530, K.Prasad wrote: On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 10:54:41AM +0100, David Howells wrote: K.Prasad pra...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote: My understanding is weak function definitions must appear in a different C file than their call sites to work on

Re: [Patch 1/4] Allow arch-specific cleanup before breakpoint unregistration

2010-05-26 Thread K.Prasad
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 10:47:42PM +0530, K.Prasad wrote: On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 10:54:41AM +0100, David Howells wrote: K.Prasad pra...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote: My understanding is weak function definitions must appear in a different C file than their call sites to work on

Re: [Patch 1/4] Allow arch-specific cleanup before breakpoint unregistration

2010-05-26 Thread K.Prasad
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 07:23:15PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 10:47:42PM +0530, K.Prasad wrote: On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 10:54:41AM +0100, David Howells wrote: K.Prasad pra...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote: My understanding is weak function definitions must

Re: [Patch 1/4] Allow arch-specific cleanup before breakpoint unregistration

2010-05-26 Thread Frederic Weisbecker
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 11:01:24PM +0530, K.Prasad wrote: On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 07:23:15PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 10:47:42PM +0530, K.Prasad wrote: On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 10:54:41AM +0100, David Howells wrote: K.Prasad pra...@linux.vnet.ibm.com

[Patch 1/4] Allow arch-specific cleanup before breakpoint unregistration

2010-05-25 Thread K.Prasad
Certain architectures (such as PowerPC Book III S) have a need to cleanup data-structures before the breakpoint is unregistered. This patch introduces an arch-specific hook in release_bp_slot() along with a weak definition in the form of a stub funciton. Signed-off-by: K.Prasad

[Patch 1/4] Allow arch-specific cleanup before breakpoint unregistration

2010-05-24 Thread K.Prasad
Certain architectures (such as PowerPC Book III S) have a need to cleanup data-structures before the breakpoint is unregistered. This patch introduces an arch-specific hook in release_bp_slot() along with a weak definition in the form of a stub funciton. Signed-off-by: K.Prasad