From: "K.Prasad" <prasad@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, mingo@elte.hu,
jason.wessel@windriver.com, avi@qumranet.com,
richardj_moore@uk.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC Patch 2/9] x86 architecture implementation of Hardware Breakpoint interfaces
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 22:58:51 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20081007172851.GD4130@in.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0810071122460.2591-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
On Tue, Oct 07, 2008 at 11:36:30AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Oct 2008, K.Prasad wrote:
>
> > This patch introduces two new files named hw_breakpoint.[ch] inside x86 specific
> > directories. They contain functions which help validate and serve requests for
> > using Hardware Breakpoint registers on x86 processors.
>
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ linux-bkpt-lkml-27-rc9/arch/x86/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c
> > @@ -0,0 +1,684 @@
>
> ...
> > +int pre_handler_allowed(unsigned type)
> > +{
> > + if (type == HW_BREAKPOINT_EXECUTE)
> > + return 1;
> > + else
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +}
>
> The routine's name should match the name in the header file. "allowed"
> isn't right: You're _allowed_ to have pre_handlers -- they just won't
> get invoked. "supported" would be better.
>
> Also, the comment in the header file should explain the meaning of the
> return value -- you should return 0 if a pre_handler is not supported,
> not -EINVAL. Better yet, define the function (both here and in the
> header file) as returning bool rather than int.
>
> > +
> > +int post_handler_allowed(unsigned type)
> > +{
> > + /* We can have a post handler for all types of breakpoints */
> > + return 1;
> > +}
>
> Same comments as above.
>
> Also, in this initial version I would prefer to avoid the complications
> of single-stepping. It can always be added later. So for now, the x86
> implementation should not support post_handlers for execution
> breakpoints.
>
> ...
> > +/*
> > + * Validate the arch-specific HW Breakpoint register settings
> > + */
> > +static int arch_validate_hwbkpt_settings(struct hw_breakpoint *bp,
> > + unsigned long address, unsigned len, unsigned int type,
> > + unsigned int *align)
>
> Why did you move this routine into the arch-specific code?
>
I missed a reply for this comment in my previous mail.
Given that arch_validate_hwbkpt_settings() validates the type of
breakpoint operation requested and length of address to be monitored -
both of which are specific to the underlying processor architecture, I
thought it would be appropriate to place them in
arch/x86/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c.
Thanks,
K.Prasad
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-10-07 17:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-10-07 11:38 [RFC Patch 0/9] Hardware Breakpoint interfaces K.Prasad
2008-10-07 11:40 ` [RFC Patch 1/9] Introducing generic hardware breakpoint handler interfaces K.Prasad
2008-10-07 15:21 ` Alan Stern
2008-10-07 16:49 ` K.Prasad
2008-10-07 11:41 ` [RFC Patch 2/9] x86 architecture implementation of Hardware Breakpoint interfaces K.Prasad
2008-10-07 15:36 ` Alan Stern
2008-10-07 17:23 ` K.Prasad
2008-10-07 17:38 ` Alan Stern
2008-10-07 17:28 ` K.Prasad [this message]
2008-10-07 11:42 ` [RFC Patch 3/9] Modifying generic debug exception to use virtual debug registers K.Prasad
2008-10-07 11:43 ` [RFC Patch 4/9] Modify kprobe exception handler to recognise single-stepping by HW Breakpoint handler K.Prasad
2008-10-07 11:44 ` [RFC Patch 5/9] Use wrapper routines around debug registers in processor related functions K.Prasad
2008-10-07 11:44 ` [RFC Patch 6/9] Use virtual debug registers in process/thread handling code K.Prasad
2008-10-07 15:40 ` Alan Stern
2008-10-07 17:48 ` K.Prasad
2008-10-07 11:45 ` [RFC Patch 7/9] Modify signal handling code to refrain from re-enabling HW Breakpoints K.Prasad
2008-10-07 11:46 ` [RFC Patch 8/9] Modify Ptrace to use wrapper routines to access breakpoint registers K.Prasad
2008-10-07 11:46 ` [RFC Patch 9/9] Cleanup HW Breakpoint registers before kexec K.Prasad
2008-10-07 12:29 ` [RFC Patch 0/9] Hardware Breakpoint interfaces Avi Kivity
2008-10-07 14:32 ` K.Prasad
2008-10-07 14:36 ` Avi Kivity
2008-10-07 16:45 ` K.Prasad
2008-10-07 16:52 ` Avi Kivity
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2008-10-08 19:20 [RFC Patch 0/9] Hardware Breakpoint interfaces - v2 K.Prasad
2008-10-08 19:23 ` [RFC Patch 2/9] x86 architecture implementation of Hardware Breakpoint interfaces K.Prasad
2008-10-16 2:57 ` Roland McGrath
2008-12-04 19:08 [RFC Patch 0/9] Hardware Breakpoint interfaces - v2 K.Prasad
2008-12-04 19:11 ` [RFC Patch 2/9] x86 architecture implementation of Hardware Breakpoint interfaces K.Prasad
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20081007172851.GD4130@in.ibm.com \
--to=prasad@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=avi@qumranet.com \
--cc=jason.wessel@windriver.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=richardj_moore@uk.ibm.com \
--cc=roland@redhat.com \
--cc=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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.