Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 22 Jan 2004 08:45:29 -0700 | From | Tom Rini <> | Subject | Re: PPC KGDB changes and some help? |
| |
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/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |