From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760279AbZE0Lsn (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 May 2009 07:48:43 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1759677AbZE0Lsf (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 May 2009 07:48:35 -0400 Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.159]:62685 "EHLO fg-out-1718.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759599AbZE0Lse (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 May 2009 07:48:34 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=le+lHgw3gPyzqbyJvK5VmdusXo2nPPrp0DZgp7WKzpyME2tK52jax0pBZSqQUgpAh0 uH8EWfRgrTTjgyMKbwTn/4o/Ugc656xRN5vxXmqNhqgaTli2tpRdF8thFnxyPMuhrbHO qeKc+zzTLQyjZ7qztA0V1t5Gy77UwkxlLovJw= Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 13:48:30 +0200 From: Frederic Weisbecker To: "K.Prasad" Cc: Ingo Molnar , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Alan Stern Subject: Re: [Patch 01/12] Prepare the code for Hardware Breakpoint interfaces Message-ID: <20090527114828.GA5982@nowhere> References: <20090521095613.834622717@prasadkr_t60p.in.ibm.com> <20090521140033.GB13849@in.ibm.com> <20090527010113.GJ5969@nowhere> <20090527084917.GC6020@in.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090527084917.GC6020@in.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 02:19:17PM +0530, K.Prasad wrote: > On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 03:01:15AM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 07:30:33PM +0530, K.Prasad wrote: > > > This patch introduces header files containing constants, structure definitions > > > and declaration of functions used by the hardware breakpoint interface code. > > > > > > Original-patch-by: Alan Stern > > > Signed-off-by: K.Prasad > > > Reviewed-by: Alan Stern > > > --- > > > Index: linux-2.6-tip.hbkpt/arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h > > > =================================================================== > > > --- linux-2.6-tip.hbkpt.orig/arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h > > > +++ linux-2.6-tip.hbkpt/arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h > > > @@ -29,6 +29,7 @@ struct mm_struct; > > > #include > > > #include > > > > > > +#define HBP_NUM 4 > > > /* > > > * Default implementation of macro that returns current > > > * instruction pointer ("program counter"). > > > @@ -433,12 +434,11 @@ struct thread_struct { > > > #endif > > > unsigned long gs; > > > /* Hardware debugging registers: */ > > > - unsigned long debugreg0; > > > - unsigned long debugreg1; > > > - unsigned long debugreg2; > > > - unsigned long debugreg3; > > > + unsigned long debugreg[HBP_NUM]; > > > > > > > > Note that each patches must leave a buildable kernel, even > > if these patches are contained in a set logic. > > > > I haven't tried yet, but I suspect this patch, if applied > > without the rest, will cause a build error. > > > > There are still some sites that use the removed fields above. > > > > A solution would be to temporarily fix these sites in this patch > > by using the new debugreg array interface. Even if you remove > > some of them in further patches in this series, for example > > by using the new load_debug_registers() helper, it will follow > > the logic step by step and leave a buildable kernel at each > > middle step. > > > > That implies to modify also some of the other patches of this > > series, but all of these changes should be trivial. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Frederic. > > > > The debugreg removal patches were correct, even as recent as > http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/5/11/160 and I guess I messed-up meanwhile. > Thanks for pointing it out - I've now moved them to Patch 8/12 along > with the ptrace changes. > > The rest of the patches allow the kernel tree to be compiled though. > Would you prefer a new iteration with these changes, or can I send > individual patches with the changes discussed above? > > Thanks, > K.Prasad > Yeah you can resend those two individual patches. That's fine. Just increase the version number and keep their place (1/12 and 8/12) so that I won't run into confusion :) Thanks!