[Kgdb-bugreport] Re: PPC KGDB changes and some help?
Status: Beta
Brought to you by:
jwessel
From: George A. <ge...@mv...> - 2004-01-22 21:55:34
|
Tom Rini wrote: > On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 09:25:19AM -0600, Hollis Blanchard wrote: > >>On Jan 22, 2004, at 9:07 AM, Tom Rini wrote: >> >>>On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 03:12:25PM -0800, George Anzinger wrote: >>> >>> >>>>A question I have been meaning to ask: Why is the arch/common >>>>connection >>>>via a structure of addresses instead of just calls? I seems to me >>>>that >>>>just calling is a far cleaner way to do things here. All the struct >>>>seems >>>>to offer is a way to change the backend on the fly. I don't thing we >>>>ever >>>>want to do that. Am I missing something? >>> >>>I imagine it's a style thing. I don't have a preference either way. >> >>I think we in PPC land have gotten used to that "style" because we have >>one kernel that supports different "platforms", i.e. it selects the >>appropriate code at runtime as George says. In general that's a little >>bit slower and a little bit bigger. >> >>Unless you need to choose among PPC KGDB functions at runtime, which I >>don't think you do, you don't need it... > > > That's certainly true, so if (and if I understand Georges question > right) Amit wants to change kgdb_arch into a set of required functions, > with stubs in, say, kernel/kgdbdummy.c, (and just keep the flags / etc > in the struct), that's fine with me. Something like that. I would make use of the weak external to handle the stub connection, i.e. the common code would define the stubs as weak functions. The linker will choose a normal over a weak so it makes the right connection. > -- George Anzinger ge...@mv... High-res-timers: http://sourceforge.net/projects/high-res-timers/ Preemption patch: http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/rml |