Re: [patch 02/11] x86 architecture implementation of HardwareBreakpoint interfaces

[Benjamin Herrenschmidt]

On Tue, 2009-03-10 at 16:30 -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> Suppose we never allow callers to register more breakpoints than will
> fit in the CPU's registers.  Do we then use a simple first-come
> first-served algorithm, with no prioritization?  If we do prioritize
> some breakpoint registrations more highly than others, how do we
> inform
> callers that their breakpoint has been kicked out by one of higher
> priority?  And how do we let them know when the higher-priority
> breakpoint has been unregistered, so they can try again?

Do we really need such a mess ? Honestly ... We've been living fine
before without any of that.

Ben.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/