Re: BitKeeper repo for KGDB

Amit S. Kale
2004-02-10T08:28:24Z

Tom,
Can you please post diffs wrt. 2.6.x kernels for the bitkeeper challanged
(me :)?

Thanks.

On Tuesday 10 Feb 2004 1:27 pm, Amit S. Kale wrote:
> http://www.codemonkey.org.uk/projects/bitkeeper/kgdb/kgdb-2004-02-10.diff
> has grown over 10MB. Something wrong in generating a diff?
>
> On Monday 09 Feb 2004 11:08 pm, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 09, 2004 at 08:50:13AM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> > > On Sun, Feb 08, 2004 at 07:29:51PM -0600, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Feb 06, 2004 at 04:02:54PM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> > > > > if (!netpoll_trap() && len == 8 && !strncmp(msg, "$Hc-1#09", 8))
> > > > > - printk(KERN_CRIT "Someone is trying to attach\n");
> > > > > -// kgdb_schedule_breakpoint();
> > > > > + breakpoint();
> > > > >
> > > > > for (i = 0; i < len; i++) {
> > > > > - if (msg[i] == 3) /* Check for ^C? */
> > > > > - printk(KERN_CRIT "Someone is trying to ^C?\n");
> > > > > -// kgdb_schedule_breakpoint();
> > > > > + if (msg[i] == 3)
> > > > > + breakpoint();
> > > >
> > > > The kgdb_schedule_breakpoint stuff in -mm didn't just appear to make
> > > > things more complicated, it is in fact necessary. You cannot
> > > > reasonably expect to break deep inside the network stack IRQ handler
> > > > and then send more packets out the same interface. Expect especially
> > > > nasty results on SMP. It only works for the serial case because that
> > > > path is a priori known to be lockless.
> > >
> > > Ah, hmm... I don't suppose there's any way to do this w/o touching
> > > every arch's do_IRQ, is there?
> >
> > Probably not. On the other hand, it provides yet more motivation for
> > an irq handling refactoring in 2.7.