[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0810071337330.2759-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 13:38:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: "K.Prasad" <prasad@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
<akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, <mingo@...e.hu>,
<jason.wessel@...driver.com>, <avi@...ranet.com>,
<richardj_moore@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC Patch 2/9] x86 architecture implementation of Hardware
Breakpoint interfaces
On Tue, 7 Oct 2008, K.Prasad wrote:
> There's been a perceivable inclination to let the user learn the
> limitations/features of the underlying processor's breakpointing ability
> (since the previous email mail thread on this topic) and the routines
> pre_ and post_handler_allowed() are just a step towards that.
>
> I can nullify the post_handler for x86-instruction breakpoint for now,
> but it wouldn't simplify things very extensively (but for a few lines of
> code in hw_breakpoint_handler() and the flag 'sstep_reason'). It also
> benefits the code by bringing an understanding that there can be
> multiple users of processor single-stepping (and therefore the need to
> de-multiplex the exception and invoke the appropriate handler).
>
> Left to me, I would like to retain the post_handler routine, unless you
> strongly feel otherwise.
Let's hear what Roland has to say.
Alan Stern
--
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