[PATCH v5 5/8] powerpc/watchpoint: Fix exception handling for CONFIG_HAVE_HW_BREAKPOINT=N
Christophe Leroy
christophe.leroy at csgroup.eu
Tue Aug 25 22:06:21 AEST 2020
Le 25/08/2020 à 13:07, Ravi Bangoria a écrit :
> Hi Christophe,
>
>>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/ptrace/ptrace-noadv.c
>>> b/arch/powerpc/kernel/ptrace/ptrace-noadv.c
>>> index 57a0ab822334..866597b407bc 100644
>>> --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/ptrace/ptrace-noadv.c
>>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/ptrace/ptrace-noadv.c
>>> @@ -286,11 +286,16 @@ long ppc_del_hwdebug(struct task_struct *child,
>>> long data)
>>> }
>>> return ret;
>>> #else /* CONFIG_HAVE_HW_BREAKPOINT */
>>> + if (child->thread.hw_brk[data - 1].flags & HW_BRK_FLAG_DISABLED)
>>
>> I think child->thread.hw_brk[data - 1].flags & HW_BRK_FLAG_DISABLED
>> should go around additionnal ()
>
> Not sure I follow.
Neither do I ....
I thought that GCC would emit a warning for that, but in fact it only
emit warnings for things like:
if (flags & HW_BRK_FLAG_DISABLED == HW_BRK_FLAG_DISABLED)
>
>>
>>> + goto del;
>>> +
>>> if (child->thread.hw_brk[data - 1].address == 0)
>>> return -ENOENT;
>>
>> What about replacing the above if by:
>> if (!(child->thread.hw_brk[data - 1].flags) &
>> HW_BRK_FLAG_DISABLED) &&
>> child->thread.hw_brk[data - 1].address == 0)
>> return -ENOENT;
> okay.. that's more compact.
>
> But more importantly, what I wanted to know is whether
> CONFIG_HAVE_HW_BREAKPOINT
> is set or not in production/distro builds for 8xx. Because I see it's
> not set in
> 8xx defconfigs.
Yes in our production configs with have CONFIG_PERF_EVENTS, that implies
CONFIG_HAVE_HW_BREAKPOINT
Christophe
More information about the Linuxppc-dev
mailing list