From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261375AbUBYP6i (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Feb 2004 10:58:38 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261389AbUBYP6h (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Feb 2004 10:58:37 -0500 Received: from fed1mtao02.cox.net ([68.6.19.243]:49403 "EHLO fed1mtao02.cox.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261375AbUBYP60 (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Feb 2004 10:58:26 -0500 Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 08:58:23 -0700 From: Tom Rini To: "Amit S. Kale" Cc: Pavel Machek , kernel list Subject: Re: Split kgdb into "lite" and "normal" parts Message-ID: <20040225155823.GP1052@smtp.west.cox.net> References: <20040218225010.GH321@elf.ucw.cz> <20040224232703.GC9209@elf.ucw.cz> <20040224233809.GK1052@smtp.west.cox.net> <200402251249.28519.amitkale@emsyssoft.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200402251249.28519.amitkale@emsyssoft.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 12:49:28PM +0530, Amit S. Kale wrote: > On Wednesday 25 Feb 2004 5:08 am, Tom Rini wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 12:27:03AM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > > > > Tested (core-lite.patch + i386-lite.patch + 8250.patch) > > > > > > > combination. Looks good. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's first check this in and then do more cleanups. > > > > > > > Tom, does it sound ok? > > > > > > > > > > > > This sounds fine to me. Pavel, I'm guessing you did this with > > > > > > quilt, could you provide some pointers on how to replicate this in > > > > > > the future? > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately, I done it by hand :-(. But if -lite parts are not > > > > > merged, soon, I'll be forced to start using quilt. Doing stuff by > > > > > hand is quite painfull... > > > > > > > > There's still a whole bunch of bogons in the -lite patch still, so I > > > > don't think it should be merged yet. > > > > > > Well, it seems to contains a *lot* less bogons than what currently is > > > in -mm series. > > > > > > What big problems do you see? It does not yet use weak symbols, but I > > > do not think that's a serious problem. What else? > > > > The first two big ones are: > > - Doesn't like gdb 6.0 (You cannot assume the first packet is Hc...) > > Can you tell me more about this? You make an assumption that the first packet is $Hc..., which you cannot do. gdb 6's first packet is $qOffsets. I'll post the patch for this shortly. > > - Wierdities with kgdb_killed_or_detached / kgdb_might_be_resumed > > (both can die). > > Yes. These have to be thought over again. I don't think a perfect solution > exists for all problems related to gdb kill/die followed by a reattach. We > should attempt a proper design describing different scenarios. I don't see the problem to be delt with. GDB reconnecting is not a special case. > > - All of the function pointer games (of which the weak symbols, but not > > all of them) are a part of. > > - Issues w/ handling 'D' and 'k' packets cleaner (and I think there was > > a correctness fix in there, too, but it was a while ago). > > Is this wrt kgdb_killed.., kgdb_might..., remove breakpoints? This will be part of the patch I hope to post today: http://ppc.bkbits.net:8080/linux-2.6-kgdb/patch@1.1500.2.19?nav=index.html|ChangeSet@-4w|cset@1.1500.2.19 > > - Don't ACK packets sitting on the line > > More info please. I see you've already taken this bit: http://ppc.bkbits.net:8080/linux-2.6-kgdb/patch@1.1500.2.16?nav=index.html|ChangeSet@-4w|cset@1.1500.2.16 -- Tom Rini http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/