Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] riscv: Introduce support for hardware break/watchpoints

[Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1406 bytes --]

On Thu, Feb 26, 2026 at 08:17:47AM +0530, Himanshu Chauhan wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2026 at 2:30 PM Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 25, 2026 at 10:33:27AM +0530, Himanshu Chauhan wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 24, 2026 at 1:33 PM Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Feb 24, 2026 at 09:30:24AM +0530, Himanshu Chauhan wrote:
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Feb 23, 2026 at 3:55 PM Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Feb 23, 2026 at 10:19:17AM +0530, Himanshu Chauhan wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > > Did you miss the comment at the end about the remaining TODOs?
> > >
> > > No. As I mentioned in the cover letter, the ptrace support is not
> > > implemented here. I am actively working on it and these are
> > > implemented in ptrace work.
> > > The test is done using the perf events directly. The second patch in
> > > this patch set has the test application.
> >
> > Then the patchset should still be marked RFC, since it is not finished.
> 
> Why? I disagree.
> It enables the debug triggers support with perf. Ptrace will build upon it.

If the functions marked TODO are are not required for the patchset to be
merged, your commit message should clearly explain why these particular
functions do not need to be implemented at this stage.

Cheers,
Conor.

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 161 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv