Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 11 Mar 2009 17:41:46 +0530 | From | "K.Prasad" <> | Subject | Re: [patch 00/11] Hardware Breakpoint interfaces |
| |
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 02:46:55PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * prasad@linux.vnet.ibm.com <prasad@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > > Hi Ingo, > > > Please find the revised set of patches that implement > > Hardware Breakpoint (or watchpoint) registers and an > > arch-specific implementation for x86/x86_64. > > General structure looks good, with a good deal of details > that need to be addressed. >
Thanks to Alan Stern for answering most of the questions....I am pitching in to fill the gaps and do any re-write based on the comments.
> Firstly, as far as i can see this should work on 32-bit too, > correct? >
Yes. It's been tested on 32-bit x86 all throughout.
> Secondly, what about other architectures - will they build just > fine without any arch level glue code? kernel/hw_breakpoint.o > get build unconditionally - without any benefit to non-x86 code. > Perhaps an ARCH_HAS_HW_BREAKPOINTS Kconfig method would be > useful to add.
The hardware breakpoint interfaces haven't been put under any CONFIG_ till now, but I think we should bring them under a new config, say CONFIG_HW_BREAKPOINT. It would help create a dependancy for CONFIG_KSYM_TRACER too.
> > There's also a number of (small) style issues. > kernel/hw_breakpoint.c and other new .c files dont comply to the > customary comment style of: > > /* > * Comment ..... > * ...... goes here: > */ > > also, the #include files section style should match that of > arch/x86/mm/fault.c - it's a conflict-avoidance style. > > also, things like this: > > static struct notifier_block hw_breakpoint_exceptions_nb = { > .notifier_call = hw_breakpoint_exceptions_notify, > .priority = 0x7fffffff /* we need to be notified first */ > }; > > should be: > > static struct notifier_block hw_breakpoint_exceptions_nb = { > .notifier_call = hw_breakpoint_exceptions_notify, > /* We need to be notified first: */ > .priority = 0x7fffffff, > }; > > Ingo
Sure, will look at the comment styling before I re-send the patchset.
Thanks, K.Prasad
| |