From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753453AbcISW0r (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Sep 2016 18:26:47 -0400 Received: from mail5.windriver.com ([192.103.53.11]:56304 "EHLO mail5.wrs.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752711AbcISW0p (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Sep 2016 18:26:45 -0400 Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH] arm64: kgdb: fix single stepping To: Will Deacon , AKASHI Takahiro , , , , , , , , References: <1429578793-3971-1-git-send-email-takahiro.akashi@linaro.org> <0ea7dfad-e25d-2919-2d03-17b850d7ba91@windriver.com> <20160916043218.GA30248@linaro.org> <20160916074513.GI3380@arm.com> From: Jason Wessel Message-ID: Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 17:25:52 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160916074513.GI3380@arm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 09/16/2016 02:45 AM, Will Deacon wrote: > On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 01:32:19PM +0900, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 08:04:57AM -0500, Jason Wessel wrote: >>> I added the patch to kgdb-next after fixing up the context since it no >>> longer applied to the mainline ( >>> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/jwessel/kgdb.git/log/?h=kgdb-next). >>> If there is further discussion on the point above, another patch can be >>> added, but it I am assuming this is the way you desire it to work as >>> there are some other architectures that use the same behaviour. I do >>> not presently have any ARM64 hardware to validate this particular >>> change. >>> >>> I also added to the patch a "Cc: linux-stable " >>> so we can have this appear on some of the older kernels. >> Since Will asked me to split this patch into a few, I need some reworks >> to clarify which hunks in the patch are necessary for which version of kernel. > Yes, splitting the patch would be much better for sorting out the stable > backports too. Jason, please can you drop the patch for now? I don't mind > whether the end result goes via arm64 or kgdb, but we should at least both > agree on it first :) Splitting it is a very wise idea so that we can have all the -stable kernels patched up with a working single step function. The separated patches can easily be tagged with the CC line examples as shown below: Cc: # 3.15.x- Cc: # 4.4 Cc: # 4.4-4.5 I had dropped the original patch. Cheers, Jason.