On Wed, 2006-06-28 at 10:18 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> 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()) {
> >>>>  #ifdef CONFIG_XENO_OPT_DEBUG
> >>>> -                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().

Ok, so the only problem that remains would be inlined asm("int 1/3") in
kernel space not handled by KGDB (whether the KGDB patch is in or not).
I'm still scratching my head pondering if we can live with this or not.

> 
> Jan
> 
-- 
Philippe.



_______________________________________________
Xenomai-core mailing list
Xenomai-core@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core

Reply via email to