Re: kgdb for mainline kernel: core-lite [patch 1/3]

[George Anzinger <george@mvista.com>]

Tom Rini wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 04:50:18PM +0530, Amit S. Kale wrote:
> 
>>On Monday 08 Mar 2004 4:37 pm, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>
>>>"Amit S. Kale" <amitkale@emsyssoft.com> wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
>>>> If you consider it an absolutely must, we can do something so that the
>>>>dirty part is kept away and info threads almost always works.
>>>
>>>Yes, I'd consider `info threads' support a must-have.  I'm rather surprised
>>>that others do not?
>>
>>Present threads support code changes calling convention of do_IRQ. Most 
>>believe that to be an absolute no.
> 
> 
> I believe that George's version does something totally different, with
> some macros at compile time (and binutils support, I _think_) to not
> have to change do_IRQ.

No, nothing at compile time, at least WRT the threads issue.  There is a 
completely different problem with backtracing through an interrupt or trap.  I 
have sent the patch for that which makes only minimal changes to code (one line 
I think, and that an asm line).  The rest is a dwarft2 set of code to build the 
frame description for the trap/interrupt frame.

> 

-- 
George Anzinger   george@mvista.com
High-res-timers:  http://sourceforge.net/projects/high-res-timers/
Preemption patch: http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/rml