From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [66.187.233.31]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80022DDD1C for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 13:00:04 +1100 (EST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Roland McGrath To: Josh Boyer Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc ptrace block-step In-Reply-To: Josh Boyer's message of Thursday, 2 April 2009 21:13:27 -0400 <20090403011327.GA16881@zod.rchland.ibm.com> References: <20090401215903.DE872FC3AB@magilla.sf.frob.com> <1238650016.17330.193.camel@pasglop> <20090403004450.F2166FC3AB@magilla.sf.frob.com> <20090403011327.GA16881@zod.rchland.ibm.com> Message-Id: <20090403015956.A2244FC3AB@magilla.sf.frob.com> Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 18:59:56 -0700 (PDT) Cc: utrace-devel@redhat.com, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > I don't think having it working for BookE is really a requirement before this > gets in though. If we can get it working with minimal effort for ppc64, that > would help get systemtap and related things functioning correctly there. Sure, just conditionalize arch_has_block_step() however is correct for that and put in what already works earlier rather than later, I'd say. Then users of the excluded chips can come forward when they care, and you can worry about it then if you don't happen to get to it first. Thanks, Roland