Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 08 Mar 2004 14:29:08 -0800 | From | George Anzinger <> | Subject | Re: kgdb for mainline kernel: core-lite [patch 1/3] |
| |
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
- 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/
| |