Re: [Kgdb-bugreport] kgdboe and console messages : recursion in put_packet() path
Status: Beta
Brought to you by:
jwessel
From: Stelian P. <st...@po...> - 2004-04-08 20:15:57
|
On Thu, Apr 08, 2004 at 11:45:51AM -0700, Tom Rini wrote: > > > If there is another console. One of the reasons I know people use kgdb > > > console is that they don't have another one setup. > > > > Sure. However, I don't think this will happen often with kgdboe. What > > you're describing happens generaly in the embedded world, where the > > serial setup is widely used and not the ethernet one. > > The embedded world is still on 2.4 mostly, but is quite looking forward > to kgdboe (I believe Amit is working for TimeSys and I'm working for > MontaVista, and I do believe both companies look forward to kgdboe :)). Sure. That's why we are working on it, don't we ? :) [...] > > > - Make kgdb_console_write do something like: > > > if (atomic_read(&debugger_active) != 0) > > > return; /* In the debugger, drop this msg. */ > > > which is like what you suggested, but moves the check to the console > > > function itself. > > > > Hmmm, if I'm correct the only parts needing protections are the > > get_packet() and put_packet methods(). What you are suggesting is > > protecting a much larger chunk of code, so risking losing more > > messages (those generated by kgdb itself for instance). > > KGBB cannot generate a printk, so I don't think it's a problem. ... unless you want to debug the kgdb protocol itself, using printk... Stelian. -- Stelian Pop <st...@po...> |