On 04/21/2015 08:11 PM, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> Anshuman Khandual wrote on 21.04.2015
> 06:55:24:
>
>> Changed ELF core note sections
>> --
>> These core note sections need to be changed to accommodate the in
>> transaction ptrace requests when the running/current valu
Anshuman Khandual wrote on 21.04.2015
06:55:24:
> Changed ELF core note sections
> --
> These core note sections need to be changed to accommodate the in
> transaction ptrace requests when the running/current value of these
> registers will reside some where else inste
On 04/20/2015 05:57 PM, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> Anshuman Khandual wrote on 13.04.2015
> 10:48:57:
>> On 04/10/2015 04:03 PM, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
>>> - You provide checkpointed FPR and VMX registers, but there doesn't
> seem
>>> to be any way to get at the checkpointed *VSX* registers (i.e. the
Anshuman Khandual wrote on 13.04.2015
10:48:57:
> On 04/10/2015 04:03 PM, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> > - You provide checkpointed FPR and VMX registers, but there doesn't
seem
> > to be any way to get at the checkpointed *VSX* registers (i.e. the
part
> > that is neither covered by FPR or VMX, co
On 04/13/2015 02:18 PM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> On 04/10/2015 04:03 PM, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
>> Anshuman Khandual wrote on 10.04.2015
>> 11:10:35:
>
> I believed it stores the check pointed MSR value which was in the register
> before the transaction started. But then how it is different from
On 04/10/2015 04:03 PM, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> Anshuman Khandual wrote on 10.04.2015
> 11:10:35:
>
>> I had posted a newer version [V7] of this patch series couple of months
> back
>> which got ignored while the discussion continued in this version.
>>
>> V7: https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/1/14/19
>
On 04/09/2015 04:41 AM, Michael Neuling wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-04-08 at 19:50 +0200, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
>> Anshuman Khandual wrote on 23.03.2015
>> 11:34:30:
>>
With that in mind, do we have a way to set the top 32bits of the MSR
(which contain the TM bits) when ptracing 32 bit process
On Wed, 2015-04-08 at 19:50 +0200, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> Anshuman Khandual wrote on 23.03.2015
> 11:34:30:
>
> > > With that in mind, do we have a way to set the top 32bits of the MSR
> > > (which contain the TM bits) when ptracing 32 bit processes? I can't
> > > find anything like that in thi
Anshuman Khandual wrote on 23.03.2015
11:34:30:
> > With that in mind, do we have a way to set the top 32bits of the MSR
> > (which contain the TM bits) when ptracing 32 bit processes? I can't
> > find anything like that in this patch set.
>
> No, we dont have that yet. When ptracing in 32-bit m
On 03/19/2015 04:20 AM, Michael Neuling wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-03-19 at 09:45 +1100, Michael Neuling wrote:
>> On Wed, 2015-03-18 at 13:53 +0100, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
>>> Michael Neuling wrote on 23.02.2015 05:51:50:
>>>
Sorry for the slow response.
>>>
>>> Same here :-(
>>
>> I'm going to br
On Thu, 2015-03-19 at 09:45 +1100, Michael Neuling wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-03-18 at 13:53 +0100, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> > Michael Neuling wrote on 23.02.2015 05:51:50:
> >
> > > Sorry for the slow response.
> >
> > Same here :-(
>
> I'm going to break the cycle and respond in a few hours :-)
>
On Wed, 2015-03-18 at 13:53 +0100, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> Michael Neuling wrote on 23.02.2015 05:51:50:
>
> > Sorry for the slow response.
>
> Same here :-(
I'm going to break the cycle and respond in a few hours :-)
> > I think what you're proposing with running the inferior function in
> >
Michael Neuling wrote on 23.02.2015 05:51:50:
> Sorry for the slow response.
Same here :-(
> Should this inferior function be run in the current mode of the
> processor? ie if the process is currently transactional and the
> transaction aborts, should we be able to see any global state change
Uli,
Sorry for the slow response.
> Michael Neuling wrote on 28.01.2015 05:28:09:
>
> > Sorry, I'm rethinking this as we didn't consider user suspended
> > transactions.
> >
> > It makes sense for normal transactions but for user suspended
> > transactions the running values are the ones you wa
Michael Neuling wrote on 28.01.2015 05:28:09:
> Sorry, I'm rethinking this as we didn't consider user suspended
> transactions.
>
> It makes sense for normal transactions but for user suspended
> transactions the running values are the ones you want to modify since
> that is where you'll end up r
On Fri, 2015-01-23 at 08:44 +1100, Michael Neuling wrote:
> > > > Inside transaction both running and check pointed values can be
> > > > probed independently.
> > >
> > > Yep, that's the idea, although setting the running values won't change
> > > anything since the the translation is already doom
> > > Inside transaction both running and check pointed values can be
> > > probed independently.
> >
> > Yep, that's the idea, although setting the running values won't change
> > anything since the the translation is already doomed and will abort once
> > the cpu starts executing it.
>
> So this
Michael Neuling wrote on 22.01.2015 00:39:57:
> On Thu, 2015-01-01 at 13:38 +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> > On 12/20/2014 12:58 AM, Edjunior Barbosa Machado wrote:
> > > The patchset seems to change the "original" ptrace requests (i.e.
> > > PTRACE_GETREGS/GETFPREGS/GETVRREGS...) to return the
On Thu, 2015-01-01 at 13:38 +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> On 12/20/2014 12:58 AM, Edjunior Barbosa Machado wrote:
> > On 12/08/2014 08:08 AM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> >> On 12/03/2014 12:18 PM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> >>> On 12/03/2014 10:52 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-
On 01/01/2015 01:38 PM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>> > Also, we've noticed that the 'misc' regset contains registers from
>> > different ISA
>> > versions (dscr and ppr appear in ISA 2.05, tar is from 2.07). I'm not sure
>> > if
>> > there is a way to detect presence/validity of such registers, bu
On 12/20/2014 12:58 AM, Edjunior Barbosa Machado wrote:
> On 12/08/2014 08:08 AM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>> On 12/03/2014 12:18 PM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>>> On 12/03/2014 10:52 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
On Tue, 2014-02-12 at 07:56:45 UTC, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> This patch adds
On 12/08/2014 08:08 AM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> On 12/03/2014 12:18 PM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>> On 12/03/2014 10:52 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2014-02-12 at 07:56:45 UTC, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
This patch adds four new ELF core note sections for powerpc
transactional
On 12/03/2014 12:18 PM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> On 12/03/2014 10:52 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>> On Tue, 2014-02-12 at 07:56:45 UTC, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>>> This patch adds four new ELF core note sections for powerpc
>>> transactional memory and one new ELF core note section for
>>> power
On 12/03/2014 10:52 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-02-12 at 07:56:45 UTC, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>> This patch adds four new ELF core note sections for powerpc
>> transactional memory and one new ELF core note section for
>> powerpc general miscellaneous debug registers. These additio
On Tue, 2014-02-12 at 07:56:45 UTC, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> This patch adds four new ELF core note sections for powerpc
> transactional memory and one new ELF core note section for
> powerpc general miscellaneous debug registers. These addition
> of new ELF core note sections extends the existin
25 matches
Mail list logo
