From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32494 invoked by alias); 29 Oct 2011 09:21:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 32483 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Oct 2011 09:21:32 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB,SPF_SOFTFAIL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtaout23.012.net.il (HELO mtaout23.012.net.il) (80.179.55.175) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sat, 29 Oct 2011 09:21:14 +0000 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout23.012.net.il by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0LTT00C00LT9M200@a-mtaout23.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Sat, 29 Oct 2011 11:21:12 +0200 (IST) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.124.212.197]) by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0LTT00CRALZBDBC0@a-mtaout23.012.net.il>; Sat, 29 Oct 2011 11:21:12 +0200 (IST) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2011 10:09:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: [PATCH] Shorter fast tracepoints In-reply-to: <4EAB573C.8040201@earthlink.net> To: Stan Shebs Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: <838vo49mrc.fsf@gnu.org> References: <4EAB573C.8040201@earthlink.net> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2011-10/txt/msg00797.txt.bz2 > Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 18:30:36 -0700 > From: Stan Shebs > > The ugly part is that the 2-byte address is in the low 64K of memory, > which may or may not be available - GDB has to check > /proc/sys/vm/mmap_min_addr. Fortunately users can tweak it manually > (via sysctl) if the preset is to block out all of low memory. > > This brings up two troublesome points about this patch as it stands. > First, documentation. As it stands, the patch to the manual says > nothing about fooling with the kernel's mmap_min_addr. In fact, it says nothing at all about the potential problems you described in this mail that this patch and the packet you introduced attempts to solve. Readers might wonder why the packet is even needed. > Should it? It's very system-specific, and the user would only need > to do anything special if mmap_min_addr were set to 64K or higher, > otherwise everything quietly works as desired. If users of tracepoints need to know about this detail, then yes, the manual should mention it. We can always qualify any specific info by its being system-specific, but having the information there for specific systems, especially popular ones, is a Good Thing. I have no other comments for the documentation parts of your patch, they are fine with me. Thanks.