Messages in this thread | | | From | "Amit S. Kale" <> | Subject | Re: BitKeeper repo for KGDB | Date | Tue, 10 Feb 2004 13:57:39 +0530 |
| |
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.
- 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/
| |