[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B61F5B2.70600@windriver.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 14:38:10 -0600
From: Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@...driver.com>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kgdb-bugreport@...ts.sourceforge.net,
mingo@...e.hu, "K.Prasad" <prasad@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] perf,hw_breakpoint,kgdb: No mutex taken forkerneldebugger
Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>> If it fails the debugger tried to remove it again later. It seems to
>> me like it is a don't care corner case. You get a printk if it ever
>> does happen (which it really shouldn't).
>
>
>
> Yeah truly it's a corner case, especially if the debugger can handle that
> later.
>
> May be just add a comment so that future reviewers don't stick to
> this part.
If you approve, I'll add your ack.
It looks like this now:
+static int hw_break_release_slot(int breakno)
+{
+ struct perf_event **pevent;
+ int cpu;
+
+ for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
+ pevent = per_cpu_ptr(breakinfo[breakno].pev, cpu);
+ if (dbg_release_bp_slot(*pevent))
+ /*
+ * The debugger is responisble for handing the retry on
+ * remove failure.
+ */
+ return -1;
+ }
+ return 0;
+}
+
Thanks,
Jason.
--
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