From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-37482-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 10766 invoked by alias); 3 Jun 2010 11:54:15 -0000
Received: (qmail 10739 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Jun 2010 11:54:15 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.6 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com (HELO cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com) (217.140.96.50)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 03 Jun 2010 11:54:02 +0000
Received: from cam-owa2.Emea.Arm.com (cam-owa2.emea.arm.com [10.1.105.18])	by cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id o53BrveI008346;	Thu, 3 Jun 2010 12:53:57 +0100 (BST)
Received: from e102139 ([10.1.255.212]) by cam-owa2.Emea.Arm.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959);	 Thu, 3 Jun 2010 12:53:57 +0100
From: "Will Deacon" <will.deacon@arm.com>
To: "'karthikeyan.s'" <informkarthik@gmail.com>,   "Matthew Gretton-Dann" <Matthew.Gretton-Dann@arm.com>
Cc: <gdb@sourceware.org>
References: <AANLkTilUjMpOvt3U2KbYSPLKMZ-g915qyA_S2-UVt7F1@mail.gmail.com>	<1275405490.22316.12.camel@e102319-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <AANLkTimkDkrZdBqyJhYsAzSfAXf4gHKiGSBM_yN41Ykf@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimkDkrZdBqyJhYsAzSfAXf4gHKiGSBM_yN41Ykf@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: RE: [HELP]Can GDB for ARM set hard breakpoint when native debugging?
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2010 11:54:00 -0000
Message-ID: <001401cb0313$70fcd1b0$52f67510$@deacon@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2010-06/txt/msg00011.txt.bz2

Hi Karthik,

> Just in case you are going to re-use most of the code for 2.6.35.
> In hw_breakpoint.c, the handlers do not release the locks on wtpt/bkpt
> not matched.
> Should rather be:
>  if (val != (unpredictable & ~0x3)) {
>     rcu_read_unlock();
>     continue;
> }
> 
> Otherwise I get a "schedule while atomic" bug.

Well spotted! My current tree is a little different, but I've
updated it as necessary.

Thanks,

Will