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

From: Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org>
To: Anup Patel <anup@brainfault.org>
Cc: Himanshu Chauhan <himanshu.chauhan@oss.qualcomm.com>,
	Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>,
	linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	pjw@kernel.org, palmer@dabbelt.com, aou@eecs.berkeley.edu,
	alex@ghiti.fr, shuah@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] riscv: Introduce support for hardware break/watchpoints
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2026 08:44:03 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260226-shifty-stingily-acfd81c08fde@spud> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAAhSdy2WHLahqPMTCqoSff6Z3no8sX2j_g858jp4XW5Et4dJXw@mail.gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1412 bytes --]

On Thu, Feb 26, 2026 at 11:05:14AM +0530, Anup Patel wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2026 at 2:31 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.
> 
> Wow! let's all of us post only large series (covering multiple features)
> which are difficult to review instead of making life easier for reviewers
> through incremental series which make gradual progress over-time.

Where did I say don't post it? In fact, marking it RFC *requires*
posting it. Don't put words in my mouth.

[-- 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