Re: [RFC Patch 2/9] x86 architecture implementation of HardwareBreakpoint interfaces

[Alan Stern]

On Tue, 7 Oct 2008, K.Prasad wrote:

> There's been a perceivable inclination to let the user learn the
> limitations/features of the underlying processor's breakpointing ability
> (since the previous email mail thread on this topic) and the routines
> pre_ and post_handler_allowed() are just a step towards that.
> 
> I can nullify the post_handler for x86-instruction breakpoint for now,
> but it wouldn't simplify things very extensively (but for a few lines of
> code in hw_breakpoint_handler() and the flag 'sstep_reason'). It also
> benefits the code by bringing an understanding that there can be
> multiple users of processor single-stepping (and therefore the need to
> de-multiplex the exception and invoke the appropriate handler).
> 
> Left to me, I would like to retain the post_handler routine, unless you
> strongly feel otherwise.

Let's hear what Roland has to say.

Alan Stern

--
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/