[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <19f34abd0803271613vc6d6e9ic0491643eb25a3e8@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 00:13:48 +0100
From: "Vegard Nossum" <vegard.nossum@...il.com>
To: "Pekka Paalanen" <pq@....fi>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>,
"Christoph Hellwig" <hch@...radead.org>,
"Arjan van de Ven" <arjan@...radead.org>,
"Pavel Roskin" <proski@....org>,
"Steven Rostedt" <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
"Peter Zijlstra" <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [RFC] mmiotrace full patch, preview 2
Hi,
I may of course be wrong, but... Shouldn't the post_kmmio_handler(),
called from the die notifier chain, check for the DR_STEP condition?
This makes sure that the function is not called in the cases where the
source of the debug exception was not a single-stepping event. Though
I guess you'll also have other checks in place to notice that the
interrupt was not the one you were expecting. I guess a little extra
safety won't hurt though?
On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 3:40 PM, Pekka Paalanen <pq@....fi> wrote:
> +/*
> + * Interrupts are disabled on entry as trap1 is an interrupt gate
> + * and they remain disabled thorough out this function.
> + * This must always get called as the pair to kmmio_handler().
> + */
> +static int post_kmmio_handler(unsigned long condition, struct pt_regs *regs)
> +{
> + int ret = 0;
> + struct kmmio_context *ctx = &get_cpu_var(kmmio_ctx);
if (!(condition & DR_STEP))
return;
Vegard
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists