Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 9 Feb 2004 11:38:28 -0600 | From | Matt Mackall <> | Subject | Re: BitKeeper repo for KGDB |
| |
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.
-- Matt Mackall : http://www.selenic.com : Linux development and consulting - 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/
| |