From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e28smtp06.in.ibm.com (e28smtp06.in.ibm.com [122.248.162.6]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "e28smtp06.in.ibm.com", Issuer "Equifax" (verified OK)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D2B9B7D65 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 2010 16:51:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from d28relay01.in.ibm.com (d28relay01.in.ibm.com [9.184.220.58]) by e28smtp06.in.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1) with ESMTP id o546pmTN030830 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 2010 12:21:48 +0530 Received: from d28av04.in.ibm.com (d28av04.in.ibm.com [9.184.220.66]) by d28relay01.in.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id o546plka2236530 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 2010 12:21:47 +0530 Received: from d28av04.in.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d28av04.in.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id o546pkJr025123 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 2010 16:51:47 +1000 Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 12:21:45 +0530 From: "K.Prasad" To: Paul Mackerras Subject: Re: [Patch 0/5] PPC64-HWBKPT: Hardware Breakpoint interfaces - ver XXII Message-ID: <20100604065145.GA2408@in.ibm.com> References: <20100528063924.GA8679@in.ibm.com> <20100602113316.GA17061@brick.ozlabs.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20100602113316.GA17061@brick.ozlabs.ibm.com> Cc: "linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org" , Benjamin Herrenschmidt Reply-To: prasad@linux.vnet.ibm.com List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 09:33:16PM +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote: > On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 12:09:24PM +0530, K.Prasad wrote: > > > Please find a new set of patches that have the following changes. > > Thanks. There are a couple of minor things still remaining (dangling > put_cpu in arch_unregister_hw_breakpoint, plus I don't think reusing > current->thread.ptrace_bps the way you did in patch 5/5 is a good > idea), but I think at this stage I'll put them in a tree together > with my latest emulate_step version and then push them to Ben H and/or > Ingo Molnar once I've done some testing. > > Paul. Hi Paul, Thanks for agreeing to put the patchset into a tree and push it to the appropriate maintainers. Meanwhile I tested the per-cpu breakpoints with the new emulate_step patch (refer linuxppc-dev message-id: 20100602112903.GB30149@brick.ozlabs.ibm.com) and they continue to fail due to emulate_step() failure, in my case, on a "lwz r0,0(r28)" instruction. About the latest patchset, given that we chose to ignore extraneous interrupts for non-ptrace breakpoints, I thought that re-using current->thread.ptrace_bps as a flag would be efficient than introducing a new member in 'struct thread_struct' to do the same. I'm not sure if you foresee any issues with that. If so, I'd like to send a new patch (rather than a new version of the complete patchset) to fix it along with the dangling put_cpu() in arch_unregister_hw_breakpoint() (I forgot to remove parts of the code between versions XIX and XX). Thanks, K.Prasad