From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from tx2outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (tx2ehsobe004.messaging.microsoft.com [65.55.88.14]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.global.frontbridge.com", Issuer "MSIT Machine Auth CA 2" (not verified)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 313022C0084 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 02:53:53 +1000 (EST) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 11:53:45 -0500 From: Scott Wood Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2] powerpc/booke: extend PTRACE_SINGLEBLOCK for BookE Branch Taken Debug To: James Yang References: <1373062265-4267-1-git-send-email-James.Yang@freescale.com> <1373062265-4267-2-git-send-email-James.Yang@freescale.com> In-Reply-To: <1373062265-4267-2-git-send-email-James.Yang@freescale.com> (from James.Yang@freescale.com on Fri Jul 5 17:11:04 2013) Message-ID: <1373388825.8183.192@snotra> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; delsp=Yes; format=Flowed Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 07/05/2013 05:11:04 PM, James Yang wrote: > This patch makes available the unmodified BookE branch taken debug > exception through PTRACE_SINGLEBLOCK if the ptrace() addr parameter is > set to 2. This is hacky -- if we must retain the existing PTRACE_SINGLEBLOCK =20 semantics (which aren't actually documented anywhere AFAICT -- if the =20 details are meant to be implementation-defined, then don't we have some =20 freedom here to actually do what the hardware does, especially if we =20 can't find existing users?), then perhaps a new PTRACE_WHATEVER should =20 be defined. At the very least, magic numbers should be given symbolic names. -Scott=