Hi, On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 9:38 AM Doug Anderson <diand...@chromium.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 8:07 AM Daniel Thompson > <daniel.thomp...@linaro.org> wrote: > > > Reading through other control flows of the various backtrace commands, > > > it looks like it is intentional to leave the current task changed when > > > you explicitly do an action on that task (or a CPU). > > > > > > Actually, though, it wasn't clear to me that it ever made sense for > > > any of these commands to implicitly leave the current task changed. > > > If you agree, I can send a follow-up patch to change this behavior. > > > > Personally I don't like implicit changes of state but I might need a bit > > more thinking to agree (or disagree ;-) ). > > I can post up a followup after this series lands and change it. I > have a feeling nobody is relying on the old behavior and thus nobody > will notice but it would be nice to get this cleaner.
Sorry it took so long, but follow-up series can be found at: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20191109191644.191766-1-diand...@chromium.org -Doug _______________________________________________ Kgdb-bugreport mailing list Kgdb-bugreport@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kgdb-bugreport
