From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <3CFB06F3.6060704@pacbell.net> Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2002 23:04:35 -0700 From: Armin MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Paul Mackerras Cc: linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org Subject: Re: pt_regs.dbcr0/1 References: <15608.22230.504008.818858@argo.ozlabs.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Sender: owner-linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: Paul Mackerras wrote: > Is anyone prepared to speak up for the dbcr0 and dbcr1 fields that > someone added to struct pt_regs for 4xx in the 2_4_devel tree? > > If not, they are going. If so, we can discuss it. > > Better still, does anyone have a clearly thought-out vision of how the > debug facilities on 4xx should be managed? > > I would much prefer to see these fields put in the thread_struct > rather than pt_regs. I am reluctant to change pt_regs without a good > reason since it is visible to userspace and is therefore part of the > kernel API. If the intention is to make the debug facilities > available to userspace then the thread_struct is a good place to put > fields relating to the debug facilities. > > Paul. > > > > > Oh man its been a while... hmmm IIRC I thought we used pt_regs for kgdb. IIRC we already use the thread_struct for gdb. There are two people who did the bulk of the debugger work, if they don't pipe up , I will do my best. I'll get back to you. armin ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/