Philippe Gerum wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-06-28 at 09:51 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> Philippe Gerum wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2006-06-26 at 19:21 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>> plain text document attachment (enhance-kernel-fault-report.patch)
>>>> Introduce xnarch_fault_um() to test if a fault happened in user-mode and 
>>>> applies the new feature to report core and driver crashes more verbosely. 
>>>>    if (xnpod_shadow_p()) {
>>>> -          if (xnarch_fault_notify(fltinfo))       /* Don't report debug 
>>>> traps */
>>>> +          if (!xnarch_fault_um(fltinfo)) {
>>>> +                  xnarch_trace_panic_freeze();
>>> KGDB breakpoint issue?
>> Sorry, please switch on verbose mode, didn't get yet what you mean.
> Oops, sorry. I meant: what if a KGDB breakpoint is hit from kernel space
> while running a shadow thread? The way I read the modified test sequence
> above, such bp trap is going to trigger a panic, instead of being
> silently passed to Linux.

I would say: KGDB will not come along here with a breakpoint. It should
already got involved in __ipipe_divert_exception().


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Xenomai-core mailing list

Reply via email to