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