On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 16:40:21 -0800,
Bruce Edge <bedge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>I've gone over the lkcd and kdb patches in detail and found all places
>where it looks like there may be problems.
>Would some kind soul be able to give me some hints as to how to sort out
>these merge issues?
>Once this is done, I could submit a patch to apply to the lkcd patch in
>order to get it to apply cleanly to a kernel with kdb already installed.
>I'm assuming this is an exercize that others could benefit from too.
>
>Here's a list. I've tried to make it readable. There are 3 questionable
>merges.
>
>TIA, Bruce.
>
>======================================================
>
>arch/i386/kernel/nmi.c, nmi_watchdog_tick(), I'm assuming this is the
>correct ordering:
Standard rule: kdb first, then lkcd. That way you get debugging when
the machine breaks, followed by a dump. You also get the benefit of
kdb gathering the data for lkcd to use in an interrupt context.
>==========================================================
>
>arch/i386/kernel/smp.c, __send_IPI_shortcut(), they both define a
>similar block, the end result includes both, this one's gotta be wrong.
Both are required, both must come _after_ this line:
cfg = __prepare_ICR(shortcut, vector);
The order of the two tests does not matter in this function but for
consistency I always do kdb then lkcd.
>===================================
>
>arch/i386/kernel/traps.c, I'm not sure the ordering here is correct, the
>net result is:
The order of the two tests does not matter in this function but for
consistency I always do kdb then lkcd.
Use http://oss.sgi.com/ecartis to modify your settings or to unsubscribe.
|