Hello.
Jason Wessel wrote:
>>> @@ -1879,7 +1880,7 @@ static int __init opt_kgdb_enter(char *s
>>> "gdb...\n");
>>> else {
>>> printk(KERN_CRIT "KGDB cannot initialize I/O yet.\n");
>>> - return;
>>> + return 0;
>> Hm, and how it compiled before?
> It produced a problem which was fixed by the second patch. That was a
> side effect of the two patches that were split badly. The net result had
> already been merged which works correctly.
Ah, the patches were also attached in the wrong order the last time...
>>> @@ -1883,7 +1872,17 @@ static int __init opt_kgdb_enter(char *s
>>> if (kgdb_initialized)
>>> return 0;
>>> - /* Call breakpoint() which will take care of init. */
>>> + if (kgdb_initialized != 1) {
>> Note that this check completely is superfluous here, i.e. the
>> condition would always be true after the first if stmt.
> I would agree. Would you agree with the following change then?
Of course (minus the obvious patch damage :-)
WBR, Sergei
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
_______________________________________________
Kgdb-bugreport mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kgdb-bugreport
