kdb
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [kdb] [PATCH, RFC] merge i386 and x86_64 kdb arch code

To: "Christoph Hellwig" <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [kdb] [PATCH, RFC] merge i386 and x86_64 kdb arch code
From: "jidong xiao" <jidong.xiao@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 12:40:37 +0800
Cc: kdb@xxxxxxxxxxx
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=XYX8cnNvNgpjclOREjKjfj1kaoDqHa8cuFuW2i1vDxo=; b=xeOGsCKFpV4Nxof+9y4OewI8d4zFVtEgWuJA54d5lzUZbM/ogRApDR3MnqhHFQYp1i 4hLpT/NlQMI21V3l1Fz3IZq8WCOAQ16+wf0xrL2Uc5dNsbHYtTNmVGY5mA1zCi+RKn9k p1dQyiBIbSg4+Rwmqyao/uoRFFzawwp4Mk56Q=
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=aAL9SwDxx87Eikh5lpB0TDPhvteCjfVK7A2c4ECBcP3xWDrMJ6E4no72Hc1jpDthwu sjgIC+X+8CaJEM7+c3O72y6dm5n1Bo38RhTin+T7QVrqCm2tBE9wGDFWemMlyQ5xKQZy hcepvgecWK67SuUKJwILwj7ZNDph/RA32y2Mg=
In-reply-to: <20081222211650.GA21962@infradead.org>
References: <20081222211650.GA21962@infradead.org>
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 5:16 AM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> The kdb arch code for i386 and x86_64 is to 98% essentially the same
> modulo a few tiniy differences that crept in over the years.  The real
> differences are:
>
>  - the register handling due to the additional registers and slightly
>   different ABI on x86_64
>  - setjmp / longjmp is different assembly code
>  - i386 has an stackdepth command.  I don't really see why it
>   doesn't exist for x86_64, but at least right now it's not there
>  - x86_64 has a cpu_pda command.  AFAIK the PDA doesn't exist on i386
>   in that form, so it's one to stay
>  - x86_64 registers a die notifier.  This looks like it would apply
>   to i386 too, but I'd like to leave it to an expert.
>
> The patch elow just merges all files.  A slightly cleaner version might
> be to have a kdba_regs_{32,64}.c for the register stuff instead of
> ifdefs.
>
>
> Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
>

Did you miss something? It seems you are going to delete
kdbasupport_32.c and kdbasupport_64.c rather than merge them.

Regards
Jason

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>