New "Linaro kernel merge result of the moment" aka "arm_next"
will.deacon at arm.com
Thu Aug 12 15:23:36 BST 2010
> > The only thing I can think of from my end is the hardware breakpoint patches
> > I have:
> > http://www.linux-arm.org/git?p=linux-2.6-wd.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/hw-breakpoint
> > I've not merged these into my Linaro branch because I'm not happy with the
> > amount of testing they've received [it's a bit of a catch 22 because one
> > good way to get them tested is to merge them!].
> My criteria would be:
> 1) Could their addition break something else even when not used?
> If there is no risk for regression then we could as well just include
> them and add fixes later if need be.
They're fairly self contained [new ptrace requests, separate source file etc]
so if you're not using them they just sit there (ok, so there's one
> 2) Is there some ABI implied with gdb or the like?
> If there are ABI issues then I'd prefer having the assurance that it
> won't change by the time this gets merged into the mainline kernel.
That's a good point. There is an ABI via the two new ptrace requests so
it's probably better to hold fire on this until the support is in mainline,
at which point everything should be cast in stone (or at least be
More information about the Linaro-dev