From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 13:14:02 -0400 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Paul Mackerras Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org Subject: Re: interesting line in process.c Message-ID: <20011013131402.A26264@nevyn.them.org> References: <15304.11248.720092.645241@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <15304.11248.720092.645241@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: On Sat, Oct 13, 2001 at 09:56:32PM +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote: > > I'm intrigued by this line, line 276 in arch/ppc/kernel/process.c in > linuxppc_2_4_devel: > > #if defined(CONFIG_4xx) && defined(DCRN_PLB0_BEAR) && defined(DCRN_PLB0_BEAR) > > When could we have DCRN_PLB0_BEAR defined but DCRN_PLB0_BEAR not? :) > Could it ever be defined if CONFIG_4xx was not defined? > > Which brings up another question that I have been meaning to ask: what > is the rationale for adding the dbcr0/1 fields to the ptrace struct > for 4xx? > > Since struct ptrace is part of the kernel/user ABI, I prefer not to > change it unless it is absolutely necessary. Could the dbcr0/1 fields > go in the thread_struct instead? Where and how are they used? Well, I don't know anything about the 4xx, so this might not be reasonable - but could they be used in setting hardware breakpoints? -- Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/