[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4C5065B0.8060303@windriver.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 12:15:28 -0500
From: Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@...driver.com>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
CC: "Deng, Dongdong" <dongdong.deng@...driver.com>,
will.deacon@....com, lethal@...ux-sh.org,
mahesh@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, prasad@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
benh@...nel.crashing.org, paulus@...ba.org, mingo@...e.hu,
kgdb-bugreport@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] hw-breakpoints, kgdb, x86: add a flagtopassDIE_DEBUG
notification
On 07/28/2010 12:08 PM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 07:13:23PM +0800, DDD wrote:
>
>> Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>>
>>> Why? It seems to me a kernel debugger should have the highest priority
>>> over anything.
>>>
>> In my option, the reason of kgdb set the lowest-prio for
>> notifier is:
>>
>> For letting kgdb to keep simple, there is no codes to check the
>> breakpoint event was generated by kgdb or not, thus it have to set kgdb
>> as lowest priority to notifier.
>>
>> If the breakpoint event is not generated by kgdb, the source of the
>> breakpoint event will consume that event before passing to kgdb's
>> routine, so that the breakpoint event of kgdb getting must be generated
>> by kgdb itself.
>>
>
>
>
> Ok, but that makes it hard to differentiate from a spurious breakpoint
> event.
>
>
>
>
The original thinking was that if you are using a low level debugger
that you would want to stop on such a event or breakpoint because there
is nothing else handling it and your system is about to print an oops
message.
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