mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "K.Prasad" <prasad@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org, mingo@elte.hu,
	jason.wessel@windriver.com, avi@qumranet.com,
	richardj_moore@uk.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC Patch 2/9] x86 architecture implementation of Hardware Breakpoint interfaces
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 22:58:51 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20081007172851.GD4130@in.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0810071122460.2591-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>

On Tue, Oct 07, 2008 at 11:36:30AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Oct 2008, K.Prasad wrote:
> 
> > This patch introduces two new files named hw_breakpoint.[ch] inside x86 specific
> > directories. They contain functions which help validate and serve requests for 
> > using Hardware Breakpoint registers on x86 processors.
> 
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ linux-bkpt-lkml-27-rc9/arch/x86/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c
> > @@ -0,0 +1,684 @@
> 
> ...
> > +int pre_handler_allowed(unsigned type)
> > +{
> > +	if (type == HW_BREAKPOINT_EXECUTE)
> > +		return 1;
> > +	else
> > +		return -EINVAL;
> > +}
> 
> The routine's name should match the name in the header file.  "allowed" 
> isn't right: You're _allowed_ to have pre_handlers -- they just won't 
> get invoked.  "supported" would be better.
> 
> Also, the comment in the header file should explain the meaning of the
> return value -- you should return 0 if a pre_handler is not supported, 
> not -EINVAL.  Better yet, define the function (both here and in the 
> header file) as returning bool rather than int.
> 
> > +
> > +int post_handler_allowed(unsigned type)
> > +{
> > +	/* We can have a post handler for all types of breakpoints */
> > +	return 1;
> > +}
> 
> Same comments as above.
> 
> Also, in this initial version I would prefer to avoid the complications
> of single-stepping.  It can always be added later.  So for now, the x86
> implementation should not support post_handlers for execution
> breakpoints.
> 
> ...
> > +/*
> > + * Validate the arch-specific HW Breakpoint register settings
> > + */
> > +static int arch_validate_hwbkpt_settings(struct hw_breakpoint *bp,
> > +			unsigned long address, unsigned len, unsigned int type,
> > +			unsigned int *align)
> 
> Why did you move this routine into the arch-specific code?
>

I missed a reply for this comment in my previous mail.

Given that arch_validate_hwbkpt_settings() validates the type of
breakpoint operation requested and length of address to be monitored -
both of which are specific to the underlying processor architecture, I
thought it would be appropriate to place them in
arch/x86/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c.

Thanks,
K.Prasad


  parent reply	other threads:[~2008-10-07 17:29 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-10-07 11:38 [RFC Patch 0/9] " K.Prasad
2008-10-07 11:40 ` [RFC Patch 1/9] Introducing generic hardware breakpoint handler interfaces K.Prasad
2008-10-07 15:21   ` Alan Stern
2008-10-07 16:49     ` K.Prasad
2008-10-07 11:41 ` [RFC Patch 2/9] x86 architecture implementation of Hardware Breakpoint interfaces K.Prasad
2008-10-07 15:36   ` Alan Stern
2008-10-07 17:23     ` K.Prasad
2008-10-07 17:38       ` Alan Stern
2008-10-07 17:28     ` K.Prasad [this message]
2008-10-07 11:42 ` [RFC Patch 3/9] Modifying generic debug exception to use virtual debug registers K.Prasad
2008-10-07 11:43 ` [RFC Patch 4/9] Modify kprobe exception handler to recognise single-stepping by HW Breakpoint handler K.Prasad
2008-10-07 11:44 ` [RFC Patch 5/9] Use wrapper routines around debug registers in processor related functions K.Prasad
2008-10-07 11:44 ` [RFC Patch 6/9] Use virtual debug registers in process/thread handling code K.Prasad
2008-10-07 15:40   ` Alan Stern
2008-10-07 17:48     ` K.Prasad
2008-10-07 11:45 ` [RFC Patch 7/9] Modify signal handling code to refrain from re-enabling HW Breakpoints K.Prasad
2008-10-07 11:46 ` [RFC Patch 8/9] Modify Ptrace to use wrapper routines to access breakpoint registers K.Prasad
2008-10-07 11:46 ` [RFC Patch 9/9] Cleanup HW Breakpoint registers before kexec K.Prasad
2008-10-07 12:29 ` [RFC Patch 0/9] Hardware Breakpoint interfaces Avi Kivity
2008-10-07 14:32   ` K.Prasad
2008-10-07 14:36     ` Avi Kivity
2008-10-07 16:45       ` K.Prasad
2008-10-07 16:52         ` Avi Kivity
2008-10-08 19:20 [RFC Patch 0/9] Hardware Breakpoint interfaces - v2 K.Prasad
2008-10-08 19:23 ` [RFC Patch 2/9] x86 architecture implementation of Hardware Breakpoint interfaces K.Prasad
2008-10-16  2:57   ` Roland McGrath
2008-12-04 19:08 [RFC Patch 0/9] Hardware Breakpoint interfaces - v2 K.Prasad
2008-12-04 19:11 ` [RFC Patch 2/9] x86 architecture implementation of Hardware Breakpoint interfaces K.Prasad

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20081007172851.GD4130@in.ibm.com \
    --to=prasad@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=avi@qumranet.com \
    --cc=jason.wessel@windriver.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=richardj_moore@uk.ibm.com \
    --cc=roland@redhat.com \
    --cc=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

Powered by JetHome