Re: Split kgdb into "lite" and "normal" parts

[Tom Rini]

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@xxxxxxxxxxx?nav=index.html|ChangeSet@-4w|cset@xxxxxxxxxxx

> > - 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@xxxxxxxxxxx?nav=index.html|ChangeSet@-4w|cset@xxxxxxxxxxx

-- 
Tom Rini
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/