Re: PPC KGDB changes and some help?

[Tom Rini <trini@kernel.crashing.org>]

On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 09:25:19AM -0600, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> On Jan 22, 2004, at 9:07 AM, Tom Rini wrote:
> >
> >On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 03:12:25PM -0800, George Anzinger wrote:
> >
> >>A question I have been meaning to ask:  Why is the arch/common 
> >>connection
> >>via a structure of addresses instead of just calls?  I seems to me 
> >>that
> >>just calling is a far cleaner way to do things here.  All the struct 
> >>seems
> >>to offer is a way to change the backend on the fly.  I don't thing we 
> >>ever
> >>want to do that.  Am I missing something?
> >
> >I imagine it's a style thing.  I don't have a preference either way.
> 
> I think we in PPC land have gotten used to that "style" because we have 
> one kernel that supports different "platforms", i.e. it selects the 
> appropriate code at runtime as George says. In general that's a little 
> bit slower and a little bit bigger.
> 
> Unless you need to choose among PPC KGDB functions at runtime, which I 
> don't think you do, you don't need it...

That's certainly true, so if (and if I understand Georges question
right) Amit wants to change kgdb_arch into a set of required functions,
with stubs in, say, kernel/kgdbdummy.c, (and just keep the flags / etc
in the struct), that's fine with me.

-- 
Tom Rini
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/