[PATCH 2/2] [PowerPC Book3E] Introduce new ptrace debug feature flag

[Thiago Jung Bauermann]

On Fri, 2011-08-26 at 14:41 +1000, David Gibson wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 09:41:43PM -0300, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
> > On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 14:00 +1000, David Gibson wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 02:57:56PM +0530, K.Prasad wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 03:09:31PM +1000, David Gibson wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 01:23:38PM +0530, K.Prasad wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > While PPC_PTRACE_SETHWDEBUG ptrace flag in PowerPC accepts
> > > > > > PPC_BREAKPOINT_MODE_EXACT mode of breakpoint, the same is not intimated to the
> > > > > > user-space debuggers (like GDB) who may want to use it. Hence we introduce a
> > > > > > new PPC_DEBUG_FEATURE_DATA_BP_EXACT flag which will be populated on the
> > > > > > "features" member of "struct ppc_debug_info" to advertise support for the
> > > > > > same on Book3E PowerPC processors.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I thought the idea was that the BP_EXACT mode was the default - if the
> > > > > new interface was supported at all, then BP_EXACT was always
> > > > > supported.  So, why do you need a new flag?
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Yes, BP_EXACT was always supported but not advertised through
> > > > PPC_PTRACE_GETHWDBGINFO. We're now doing that.
> > > 
> > > I can see that.  But you haven't answered why.
> > 
> > BookS doesn't support BP_EXACT, that's why I suggested this flag.
> 
> Surely you can support it with exactly the same sort of filtering
> you're using for the 8-byte ranges now?

Yes, but to detect that the processor doesn't support BP_EXACT in
hardware I'd have to send a ptrace request, and have it rejected. Only
then I'd step back and simulate one with ranges. Considering that it's
easy and backwards compatible to add a new flag to signal that BP_EXACT
is not supported, I don't know why it would be better to go with the
more convoluted process.

-- 
[]'s
Thiago Jung Bauermann
IBM Linux Technology Center