From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 104792 invoked by alias); 16 Sep 2016 17:30:29 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 104709 invoked by uid 89); 16 Sep 2016 17:30:22 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=PER, H*o:Research, H*Ad:U*uweigand, our X-HELO: mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (HELO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com) (148.163.158.5) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 16 Sep 2016 17:30:10 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098419.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.17/8.16.0.17) with SMTP id u8GHSc9D120952 for ; Fri, 16 Sep 2016 13:30:08 -0400 Received: from e06smtp12.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp12.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.108]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 25ftr92g7d-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Fri, 16 Sep 2016 13:30:08 -0400 Received: from localhost by e06smtp12.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Fri, 16 Sep 2016 18:28:36 +0100 Received: from d06dlp02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.20.14) by e06smtp12.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.142) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; Fri, 16 Sep 2016 18:28:34 +0100 Received: from b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay10.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.195]) by d06dlp02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10AC62190056 for ; Fri, 16 Sep 2016 18:27:55 +0100 (BST) Received: from d06av06.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av06.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.37.217]) by b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id u8GHSY7G17039660 for ; Fri, 16 Sep 2016 17:28:34 GMT Received: from d06av06.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by d06av06.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id u8GHSXsR012988 for ; Fri, 16 Sep 2016 13:28:34 -0400 Received: from oc1027705133.ibm.com (dyn-9-152-212-159.boeblingen.de.ibm.com [9.152.212.159]) by d06av06.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id u8GHSX3n012963 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 16 Sep 2016 13:28:33 -0400 From: Andreas Arnez To: Pedro Alves Cc: Ulrich Weigand , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] S390: Watchpoint enhancements and hardware breakpoints References: <20160916124323.AE052FE999@oc8523832656.ibm.com> Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2016 17:30:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Pedro Alves's message of "Fri, 16 Sep 2016 16:43:48 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 16091617-0008-0000-0000-000002CCD2BB X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 16091617-0009-0000-0000-000019FD1745 Message-Id: X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:,, definitions=2016-09-16_09:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1609020000 definitions=main-1609160220 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-09/txt/msg00186.txt.bz2 On Fri, Sep 16 2016, Pedro Alves wrote: > I see. Thanks for the clarification. > > A comment to the effect in the code would be nice. Maybe it's > there and I missed it. OK, changed the relevant comment to this: /* Don't install hardware breakpoints while single-stepping, since our PER settings (e.g. the nullification bit) might then conflict with the kernel's. But re-install them afterwards. */ Also changed the documentation of lwp_is_stepping as suggested by Yao: /* Return nonzero if we are single-stepping this LWP at the ptrace level. */ > I have no further comments on the series. LGTM. Thanks. Pushed with the changes above. -- Andreas