From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9F4C9C7115A for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2025 12:36:50 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender:List-Subscribe:List-Help :List-Post:List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:Content-Type: MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=LtbmUsAzj0FCvYMwxX4JzIhkabG9QzKjTINwKT4HBdg=; b=1hOiMvztHY/rg3wZC8RsH0+FVb xWEKo0CkaBJ87TvNtmUJUzrearmeKcfesihH6TGciSzxfwUQun/Kj8ZZFWQW10bl7EICBMlRRpFZC 2d1sGTyocmvGSmdvdn9oE7LvouFkqfN4NNqBZ2XbdaTC+G8uRoYxK9Bh3EML64cgIlK26ATWnZo0F qgTRRu3m2QHnyuuq2BeIS5Na39uHnoiDi/Y00sUNhCRAAZiknmUbJg59rQb461G67D4W86qYZSked T51QqO6HMKKu1+pxRHgcBCzZG8mGjVtdSq5frZqMCbCByoMn5AnLECxPuNwLFZWHCUy86940QG99d mnadtB9A==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.98.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1uRs1z-0000000A9UJ-07dX; Wed, 18 Jun 2025 12:36:43 +0000 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.98.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1uRq7Z-00000009o1o-0Peh for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 18 Jun 2025 10:34:22 +0000 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB8B814BF; Wed, 18 Jun 2025 03:33:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from J2N7QTR9R3 (usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E4ECF3F66E; Wed, 18 Jun 2025 03:34:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2025 11:34:16 +0100 From: Mark Rutland To: Ada Couprie Diaz Cc: Anshuman Khandual , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , "Luis Claudio R. Goncalves" Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 04/13] arm64: debug: call step handlers statically Message-ID: References: <20250609173413.132168-1-ada.coupriediaz@arm.com> <20250609173413.132168-5-ada.coupriediaz@arm.com> <831db1e9-ed27-4116-b43b-ac580603d7ac@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20250618_033421_177503_176302B7 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 17.08 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Mon, Jun 16, 2025 at 02:39:43PM +0100, Ada Couprie Diaz wrote: > On 13/06/2025 08:47, Anshuman Khandual wrote: > > > On 09/06/25 11:04 PM, Ada Couprie Diaz wrote: > > > [...] > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/kgdb.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/kgdb.c > > > index b5a3b9c85a65..8f6ce2ea005c 100644 > > > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/kgdb.c > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/kgdb.c > > > @@ -250,7 +250,7 @@ int kgdb_compiled_brk_handler(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long esr) > > > } > > > NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(kgdb_compiled_brk_handler); > > > -static int kgdb_step_brk_fn(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long esr) > > > +int kgdb_singlestep_handler(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long esr) > > This rename makes sense but as mentioned later kgdb_single_step_handler() > > might save some changes in uprobes callback function. > > That's fair. I think I would prefer the `_single_step_` version now as well, > so I'll go for it. FWIW, that sounds good to me. > As per the other patch, would it make sense to split the rename here as well > ? Would it be OK if it were in the same commit as the breakpoint exception > handlers ? I think it makes sense for the rename to be in this patch, at the point we expose the functions in header files. No need to split that out into a separate patch. Thanks, Mark.