On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 10:40:24PM +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 09, 2010 at 03:55:59PM +0530, K.Prasad wrote:
>
> > + if (!((bp->attr.bp_addr <= dar) &&
> > + (dar <= (bp->attr.bp_addr + bp->attr.bp_len)))) {
> > + /*
> > + * This exception is triggered not because of a memory access
> > + * on the monitored variable but in the double-word address
> > + * range in which it is contained. We will consume this
> > + * exception, considering it as 'noise'.
> > + */
> > + info->extraneous_interrupt = true;
> > + }
>
> Ummm, don't you need to add "else info->extraneous_interrupt = false;"
> here? I don't see anywhere that you ever clear it otherwise.
>
> Also, I think you need to do the "if (!info->extraneous_interrupt)"
> check around the call to perf_bp_event() later on in
> hw_breakpoint_handler() as well as around the call in
> single_step_dabr_instruction().
>
> Paul.
True, I've added the check before perf_bp_event() (wherever it was
missing before) in the patchset ver XXIV.
Thanks,
K.Prasad
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
