Messages in this thread | | | From | Roland McGrath <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] UML utrace support, step 1 | Date | Thu, 22 Feb 2007 19:19:03 -0800 (PST) |
| |
> OK, I'll do it this way.
Your replacement patch still has utrace_regset stuff in it, so it doesn't compile without the later patches in the series. Try applying only utrace-tracehook.patch from the series, then get it to build and make your utrace-tracehook-um.patch. Then apply only utrace-regset.patch on top of that, and get that building to make utrace-regset-um.patch. Then apply utrace-core.patch and utrace-ptrace-compat.patch to get ptrace finally working again and make utrace-ptrace-compat-um.patch.
> Yup, I'll leave this here, with .name initialized as SUBARCH, with the > regsets defined in sys-$(ARCH) somewhere.
You'll still find this insufficient when you get to biarch support (x86_64). At least you'll have to add another one elsewhere too, and make utrace_native_view refer to both.
> Fixed. block-step is hardware-trap-on-branch or something similar?
Correct.
> No, this is with preempt off.
Ok. We do seem to have a problem when the host has CONFIG_PREEMPT=y, which makes me suspect it might be a race problem that could also hit with enough hardware parallelism. If you get a chance to try that and can characterize the way it misbehaves at the level of specific ptrace/wait calls, that would be a great help. Otherwise I'll try to look into it when I get some time, but it's falling down the queue a bit since people don't seem too put out about it right now.
Thanks very much, Roland - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |