From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ozlabs.org (ozlabs.org [103.22.144.67]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3qvP1W6XZ7zDq5k for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2016 23:23:43 +1000 (AEST) Received: from e24smtp05.br.ibm.com (e24smtp05.br.ibm.com [32.104.18.26]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3qvP1V5nCbz9t5h for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2016 23:23:42 +1000 (AEST) Received: from localhost by e24smtp05.br.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Tue, 26 Apr 2016 10:23:37 -0300 Received: from d24relay01.br.ibm.com (d24relay01.br.ibm.com [9.8.31.16]) by d24dlp02.br.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F8441DC0072 for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2016 09:23:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from d24av01.br.ibm.com (d24av01.br.ibm.com [9.8.31.91]) by d24relay01.br.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id u3QCLHnI4931682 for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2016 09:21:17 -0300 Received: from d24av01.br.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by d24av01.br.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id u3QDNSfS031102 for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2016 10:23:30 -0300 Subject: Re: [PATCH V10 00/28] Add new powerpc specific ELF core notes To: Michael Ellerman , Laurent Dufour , Anshuman Khandual , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org References: <1455613198-5113-1-git-send-email-khandual@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <57062722.5090706@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <5EA48413-85A1-4CB7-8843-CE22B2BB1F08@ellerman.id.au> <570B4508.6060806@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1460525779.30704.7.camel@ellerman.id.au> Cc: mikey@neuling.org, james.hogan@imgtec.com, avagin@openvz.org, Paul.Clothier@imgtec.com, peterz@infradead.org, palves@redhat.com, shuahkh@osg.samsung.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, oleg@redhat.com, dhowells@redhat.com, Ulrich.Weigand@de.ibm.com, kirjanov@gmail.com, davej@redhat.com, tglx@linutronix.de, sukadev@linux.vnet.ibm.com, davem@davemloft.net, sam.bobroff@au1.ibm.com From: Edjunior Barbosa Machado Message-ID: <571F6BCE.2050505@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 10:23:26 -0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1460525779.30704.7.camel@ellerman.id.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 04/13/2016 02:36 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote: > On Mon, 2016-04-11 at 03:32 -0300, Edjunior Barbosa Machado wrote: >> Hi Michael, Anshuman, >> >> I've managed to implement the GDB support for the new regsets and test >> on Power8 (BE and LE). > > Great work thanks! > >> The following is an example of GDB 'info >> registers all' partial output showing the new registers when inside a >> suspended transaction on Power8 LE using this patchset. Please let me >> know if you need any additional information or tests from GDB side. > > What's the plan for merging the gdb changes? Thanks for the feedback, Michael. I intend to submit the patches to the gdb mailing list for review right after the kernel patchset is checked in. > >> (gdb) info registers all >> ... >> dscr 0x0 0 >> ppr 0xc000000000000 3377699720527872 >> tar 0x0 0 >> ebbrr >> ebbhr >> bescr >> siar >> sdar >> sier >> mmcr2 >> mmcr0 >> tfhar 0x10002b30 268446512 >> texasr 0x110000098000001 76561196215435265 >> tfiar 0x10002ad9 268446425 >> cr0 0x10002b2c 268446508 > > Using 'c' as the prefix is a bit confusing here, as 'cr0' is usually used to > refer to the CR0 field of CR. > > Speaking of which, I don't see CR here? Or is it somewhere above in the ... ? > > Maybe the prefix could be 'c_' ? > > Or do other arches already use 'c' as the prefix? Good point, I hadn't thought about the possible confusion with CR register (CR doesn't appear in the excerpt because it is just a partial output of 'info registers all', reduced to the new registers only). As far as I am aware, we don't have other arches that use 'c' as prefix (Are there other arches that provide checkpointed registers? s390 gdb uses 't' as prefix, but for the transactional regs, which would be the "opposite" of our checkpointed ones here, if I'm not mistaken), but this can be changed with no difficult in gdb code. Thanks and regards, -- Edjunior Barbosa Machado