From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lichtman.org (lichtman.org [149.28.33.109]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8758B148300 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2024 20:37:36 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=149.28.33.109 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1730147858; cv=none; b=j/0rQM8brtogRIj96ydBVesOrQLahnnhgiJ2UJMpNc21oyRsYy+jqJovDaGfoDk4CanG6NnHkFfVhE5TWsUomYxWXZmimjKsikDbI8SRHLG3l3sU9opyoY3VMbK7/4qL9KrwBauzEHiSja9VSoLtpU0mdO7ZG7eQ+42uKWI+CQ0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1730147858; c=relaxed/simple; bh=1cmMA6DZcIj1ByUWOXepebgMFqvxMzRHCB8E9CDMjlc=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=skrZffAH4e9q5RFDexKjbZ43KNr5w3gP8fh5o2VHmZc4NMoysT+DNmW9NPkDQHuTrFVvS1FrnrapDYjjiinAiJibaSxO9zsn6vUSno13DUHAQvtnxRVfjrRGx633lm0edX4Ker2G7eur+L8Xgv+nWhPyvLO6u7b7Ed3Wt7IxJ10= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lichtman.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lichtman.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lichtman.org header.i=@lichtman.org header.b=XRlsP4MP; arc=none smtp.client-ip=149.28.33.109 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lichtman.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lichtman.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lichtman.org header.i=@lichtman.org header.b="XRlsP4MP" Received: by lichtman.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 75A69177109; Mon, 28 Oct 2024 20:37:35 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=lichtman.org; s=mail; t=1730147855; bh=1cmMA6DZcIj1ByUWOXepebgMFqvxMzRHCB8E9CDMjlc=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=XRlsP4MPGa7h7zOFzKDBEcBo9QX8tRMFmkGcgVeAYYN7yFIVqTrGPsh2IlCE50ECe cHTzmVEeObLjOpkR/ceV0ajGU6tJVQC77k8mucf9hhvEv4zIMXUSAIKh/e3zG+iw66 VtLl7Be5XTTLEHNI0wQK1ZhTZW5tIHZDHKzpgWObuRnrmFp61KcFq1TG9ZL3RGH0Vk vA5HDFi6t9epgtsfAJQj7G9Ygd3y0paPDjz1VnJEHQiLewgYC6YJPmwOGS3Zo0mTBS D5O1edOSQEH7o71PZWGww57isk5YQavd38n4hwvV7MqaYhca/wY815a7Ig2txdwWa9 wzMgKC700bOAg== Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2024 20:37:35 +0000 From: Nir Lichtman To: Doug Anderson Cc: jason.wessel@windriver.com, daniel.thompson@linaro.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] kdb: Fix breakpoint enable to be silent if already enabled Message-ID: <20241028203735.GA919150@lichtman.org> References: <20241027204729.GA907155@lichtman.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: On Mon, Oct 28, 2024 at 11:38:00AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: > On Sun, Oct 27, 2024 at 1:47 PM Nir Lichtman wrote: > > > > Fix the breakpoint enable command (be) to a logic that is inline with the > > breakpoint disable command (bd) in which if the breakpoint is already in > > an enabled state, do not print the message of enabled again to the user. > > I don't ever use these commands (if I'm setting breakpoints them I'm > using kgdb, not kdb), but this seems OK to me in general. I'm a little > curious why you don't also make the "breakpoint clear" command > consistent. > After looking deeper into this, reason this is not applicable for the "bc" command is that after clearing the breakpoint, upon trying to clear it again, an error will occur that says the breakpoint doesn't exist anymore hence this logic is not applicable for "bc" which unlike "be"/"bd" completely clear out the bp Thanks, Nir > -Doug