lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jun]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 11/12] hw-breakpoints: ftrace plugin for kernel symbol tracing using HW Breakpoint interfaces
On Wed, Jun 03, 2009 at 02:38:12AM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 04:12:08PM -0700, David Daney wrote:
> > Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> >> From: K.Prasad <prasad@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

> > I hate to sound like a broken record, but could some one explain to me
> > again why it is a good idea to design a new API that requires processor
> > specific #ifdefs to be sprinkled all around generic kernel code?
> >
> > Back in:
> > http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/12/4/329
> > and
> > http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/5/21/189
> >
> > I raised doubts about this hw-breakpoint thing being generic and the
> > responses made think that the processor specific portions would be
> > isolated in the processor specific parts of the kernel. I now see that
> > I was wrong.
> >
> > When we add sparc, MIPS, ppc... Support it would be nice to not have to
> > add all our own #ifdefs to this, but instead have a generic interface
> > that will not need changes.
> >
> > David Daney
>
> I was discussing about it with Prasad few hours ago :)
>
> The fact is that archs support the hardware breakpoints in
> very different ways each.
> Some of them support read breakpoint, others not (x86).
> Some support addresses range, others (x86).
>
> But still it would be nice to gather the most common
> breakpoints operations through a real generic wrapper
> that relies on arch specific implmentation in
> background.
>
> Such as setting very simple x/w/r breakpoints...
>
> Well Prasad and Alan Stern could tell more about it,
> I wait for their answer.
>
> Anyway it's a fairly new Api that can still evolve.
> The basis are set but can still be improved and more high level
> and generic things can still be implemented.
>

I think this concern can be partially addressed, atleast as far as the
breakpoint length is concerned. I've added my comments in the response
to David Daney here: http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/6/4/303.

Hope that the changes proposed there is acceptable to the community.

Thanks,
K.Prasad



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-06-04 17:47    [W:0.052 / U:1.524 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site