diff for duplicates of <1426718702.4866.2.camel@neuling.org> diff --git a/a/1.txt b/N1/1.txt index 06d590b..a0655f3 100644 --- a/a/1.txt +++ b/N1/1.txt @@ -1,20 +1,18 @@ On Wed, 2015-03-18 at 13:53 +0100, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > Michael Neuling <mikey@neuling.org> wrote on 23.02.2015 05:51:50: ->=20 +> > > Sorry for the slow response. ->=20 +> > Same here :-( I'm going to break the cycle and respond in a few hours :-) > > I think what you're proposing with running the inferior function in -> > suspend mode may end up corrupting the stack in this way. You'd need t= -o -> > be really careful to make sure the inferior function is run on the stac= -k +> > suspend mode may end up corrupting the stack in this way. You'd need to +> > be really careful to make sure the inferior function is run on the stack > > pointer of the checkpointed registers. ->=20 +> > On the other hand, if code called a subroutine after the tbegin, if we > were using the checkpointed r1, this might corrupt the stack of the > transactional code. (This code will never actually *run* again since @@ -22,7 +20,7 @@ k > the inferior call has returned, so the stack should remain unchanged. > Well .. if the transaction is suspended, the code might in fact still > run, so it should remain unchanged either way.) ->=20 +> > I guess we could use the minimum of transactional and checkpointed r1 > in that case, to be safe either way. @@ -46,14 +44,14 @@ Sounds good. > > > to force us back into transactional/suspended state ...). > > > > Yep. ->=20 +> > So right now I'd tend to prefer (A)+(A'), but the important thing is > that the kernel seems to provide all features required for GDB to > implement any of the above, so we can still make that decision later. ->=20 +> > > Getting back to the kernel interface, are you happy with what Anshuman > > has proposed in the current series? ->=20 +> > Given the discussion above, this seems fine to me now. Great, we'll push through with this in mind. diff --git a/a/content_digest b/N1/content_digest index 6ee9fd6..ef6bf6a 100644 --- a/a/content_digest +++ b/N1/content_digest @@ -14,44 +14,43 @@ "Subject\0Re: [V6,1/9] elf: Add new powerpc specifc core note sections\0" "Date\0Thu, 19 Mar 2015 09:45:02 +1100\0" "To\0Ulrich Weigand <Ulrich.Weigand@de.ibm.com>\0" - "Cc\0shuahkh@osg.samsung.com" - james.hogan@imgtec.com + "Cc\0akpm@linux-foundation.org" avagin@openvz.org - Paul.Clothier@imgtec.com - peterz@infradead.org - linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org + davej@redhat.com davem@davemloft.net dhowells@redhat.com - linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org + Edjunior Barbosa Machado <emachado@linux.vnet.ibm.com> + james.hogan@imgtec.com + Anshuman Khandual <khandual@linux.vnet.ibm.com> kirjanov@gmail.com - tglx@linutronix.de + linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org + linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org + Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> oleg@redhat.com - sukadev@linux.vnet.ibm.com - davej@redhat.com - akpm@linux-foundation.org palves@redhat.com - Edjunior Barbosa Machado <emachado@linux.vnet.ibm.com> + Paul.Clothier@imgtec.com + peterz@infradead.org sam.bobroff@au1.ibm.com - " Anshuman Khandual <khandual@linux.vnet.ibm.com>\0" + shuahkh@osg.samsung.com + sukadev@linux.vnet.ibm.com + " tglx@linutronix.de\0" "\00:1\0" "b\0" "On Wed, 2015-03-18 at 13:53 +0100, Ulrich Weigand wrote:\n" "> Michael Neuling <mikey@neuling.org> wrote on 23.02.2015 05:51:50:\n" - ">=20\n" + "> \n" "> > Sorry for the slow response.\n" - ">=20\n" + "> \n" "> Same here :-(\n" "\n" "I'm going to break the cycle and respond in a few hours :-)\n" "\n" "\n" "> > I think what you're proposing with running the inferior function in\n" - "> > suspend mode may end up corrupting the stack in this way. You'd need t=\n" - "o\n" - "> > be really careful to make sure the inferior function is run on the stac=\n" - "k\n" + "> > suspend mode may end up corrupting the stack in this way. You'd need to\n" + "> > be really careful to make sure the inferior function is run on the stack\n" "> > pointer of the checkpointed registers.\n" - ">=20\n" + "> \n" "> On the other hand, if code called a subroutine after the tbegin, if we\n" "> were using the checkpointed r1, this might corrupt the stack of the\n" "> transactional code. (This code will never actually *run* again since\n" @@ -59,7 +58,7 @@ "> the inferior call has returned, so the stack should remain unchanged.\n" "> Well .. if the transaction is suspended, the code might in fact still\n" "> run, so it should remain unchanged either way.)\n" - ">=20\n" + "> \n" "> I guess we could use the minimum of transactional and checkpointed r1\n" "> in that case, to be safe either way.\n" "\n" @@ -83,14 +82,14 @@ "> > > to force us back into transactional/suspended state ...).\n" "> >\n" "> > Yep.\n" - ">=20\n" + "> \n" "> So right now I'd tend to prefer (A)+(A'), but the important thing is\n" "> that the kernel seems to provide all features required for GDB to\n" "> implement any of the above, so we can still make that decision later.\n" - ">=20\n" + "> \n" "> > Getting back to the kernel interface, are you happy with what Anshuman\n" "> > has proposed in the current series?\n" - ">=20\n" + "> \n" "> Given the discussion above, this seems fine to me now.\n" "\n" "Great, we'll push through with this in mind.\n" @@ -98,4 +97,4 @@ "Thanks!\n" Mikey -eaec49160e9d6f9417f6b558ae4d82b608e1556dc13b24ed942001829199202c +4c4d857222778938b0342a6a1f2fb48ba8d6c21ec7745fb489faa169211cce10
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.