[Xenomai-core] Re: [PATCH] kgdb/x86 over I-pipe

2006-06-15 Thread Jan Kiszka
Philippe Gerum wrote: Jan Kiszka wrote: Philippe Gerum wrote: While we are at it, #define current ipipe_safe_current() /* ? */ Nope, there is the need for some special changes. If you refer to the cache flushing issue, then it would be better to actually check for foreign stacks

[Xenomai-core] Re: [PATCH] kgdb/x86 over I-pipe

2006-06-15 Thread Philippe Gerum
Jan Kiszka wrote: Philippe Gerum wrote: Jan Kiszka wrote: Philippe Gerum wrote: While we are at it, #define current ipipe_safe_current() /* ? */ Nope, there is the need for some special changes. If you refer to the cache flushing issue, then it would be better to actually check for

[Xenomai-core] Re: [PATCH] kgdb/x86 over I-pipe

2006-06-12 Thread Jan Kiszka
Philippe Gerum wrote: Jan Kiszka wrote: Philippe Gerum wrote: Jan Kiszka wrote: Philippe Gerum wrote: Hi Jan, Based on your previous work, here is a set of patches coupling KGDB and the I-pipe. Basically, I've attempted to shrink the extra patches needed against the original KGDB +

[Xenomai-core] Re: [PATCH] kgdb/x86 over I-pipe

2006-06-12 Thread Philippe Gerum
Jan Kiszka wrote: Philippe Gerum wrote: Jan Kiszka wrote: Philippe Gerum wrote: Jan Kiszka wrote: Philippe Gerum wrote: Hi Jan, Based on your previous work, here is a set of patches coupling KGDB and the I-pipe. Basically, I've attempted to shrink the extra patches needed against

[Xenomai-core] Re: [PATCH] kgdb/x86 over I-pipe

2006-06-10 Thread Jan Kiszka
Philippe Gerum wrote: Jan Kiszka wrote: Philippe Gerum wrote: Hi Jan, Based on your previous work, here is a set of patches coupling KGDB and the I-pipe. Basically, I've attempted to shrink the extra patches needed against the original KGDB + I-pipe ones to the bare minimum. This has been