[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8bd0f97a1002142336k9ffeekb8c81384252d2192@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 02:36:50 -0500
From: Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@...il.com>
To: Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, oleg@...hat.com,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
uclinux-dist-devel@...ckfin.uclinux.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Blackfin: initial tracehook support
On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 04:41, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 15:44, Roland McGrath wrote:
>> Moreover, the usual cleanup is to make your arch_ptrace() use
>> copy_regset_from_user() and copy_regset_to_user() to implement existing
>> calls ike PTRACE_GETREGS. That way, existing ptrace users (strace, gdb)
>> become tests of the user_regset paths (some of them).
unfortunately the Blackfin ports of both gdb and strace do not use the
PTRAGE_{G,S}ETREGS interfaces. so i had to port both in order to test
out the new code.
> OK, this should be doable. are there any guidelines for what should
> be in a specific regset ? the Blackfin processor does not have a FPU,
> so the only set i have defined atm is the "general" set and that is
> exactly the same as the current set of ptrace registers. this is also
> what the current PTRACE_{G,S}ETREGS operates on (struct pt_regs).
going by the gdb code, all i really need to worry about is the
"general" set and have that be the same as pt_regs today
i have one or two small things to check out, but i think we should be
all set now thanks to your help
-mike
--
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