Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 27 May 2009 14:19:17 +0530 | From | "K.Prasad" <> | Subject | Re: [Patch 01/12] Prepare the code for Hardware Breakpoint interfaces |
| |
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 <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> > > Signed-off-by: K.Prasad <prasad@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > Reviewed-by: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> > > --- > > 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 <linux/threads.h> > > #include <linux/init.h> > > > > +#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<n> 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
| |