RE: [Fault-injection-developer] RFC: Interceptor for PIO

[Lynch, R. <rus...@in...>]

Now that I think about this some more, it would make more sense to first 
implement a PIO interceptor that uses kwatch, and just have it fail if 
to register a new trigger if the number of watchpoints are exceeded.

After we have that in place and we are trying to use it, then it will
become clear if the watchpoint limitation is too restrictive.  From the
fault injection core's perspective, both implementations would look the
same.

    -rusty

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lynch, Rusty [mailto:rus...@in...]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 9:44 AM
> To: Wang, Stanley; 'fau...@li...'
> Subject: RE: [Fault-injection-developer] RFC: Interceptor for PIO
> 
> 
> 
> > Stanley wrote: 
> > pros:
> > 1. As many breakpoints as you wish :)
> > 
> > cons:
> > 1. A user mode utility is needed for finding all IO related 
> > instructions
> > out.
> > 2. And we need to export the symbol "modules" for locating 
> the wanted
> > instructions.
> > 
> 
> Have you looked into the new kernel module loader?  We might be able
> to take advantage of some of the extra functionality it presents (at
> least for loadable modules).
> 
>     --rusty
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.NET email is sponsored by: Order your Holiday Geek 
> Presents Now!
> Green Lasers, Hip Geek T-Shirts, Remote Control Tanks, 
> Caffeinated Soap,
> MP3 Players,  XBox Games,  Flying Saucers,  WebCams,  Smart Putty.
> T H I N K G E E K . C O M       http://www.thinkgeek.com/sf/
> _______________________________________________
> Fault-injection-developer mailing list
> Fau...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fault-injection-developer
>