Jason Wessel wrote: > Jan Kiszka wrote: >> >> At this chance... Reminds me that this old issue still seems to be >> unsolved in current kgdb: >> >> http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg00442.html >> >> >> I'm only looking at that spot in kgdb right now and /may/ oversee new >> border conditions elsewhere. But my feeling is there are none. >> >> Jan (looking forward to see kgdb merged) >> >> > > > Hi Jan, > > This issue was fixed in a generic way in the patch set that is in the > -mm tree. Had you tried your test case in the current -mm tree?
Nope, I have unfortunately no adequate test setup at hand right now. > > The problem you mentioned was fixed by saving and restoring the preempt > count as a part of the fault handling from the kgdb core and not in the > arch specific portion. Ah, OK, that was the piece I missed. Then /me is just curious to finally learn why that hack I once proposed (which unfortunately never received some feedback) is not the right way to go. In other words, what is the reason for this special fault_setjmp/fault_longjmp? Jan
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
