Jason Wessel wrote:
quoted text
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>
>> At this chance... Reminds me that this old issue still seems to be
>> unsolved in current kgdb:
>>
>> http://www.mail-archive.com/kgdb-bugreport@lists.sourceforge.net/msg00=
442.html
quoted text
>>
>>
>> I'm only looking at that spot in kgdb right now and /may/ oversee new
>> border conditions elsewhere. But my feeling is there are none.
>>
>> Jan (looking forward to see kgdb merged)
>>
>>  =20
>=20
>=20
> Hi Jan,
>=20
> This issue was fixed in a generic way in the patch set that is in the
> -mm tree.  Had you tried your test case in the current -mm tree?

Nope, I have unfortunately no adequate test setup at hand right now.

quoted text
>=20
> The problem you mentioned was fixed by saving and restoring the preempt=

quoted text
> count as a part of the fault handling from the kgdb core and not in the=

quoted text
> arch specific portion.

Ah, OK, that was the piece I missed.

Then /me is just curious to finally learn why that hack I once proposed
(which unfortunately never received some feedback) is not the right way
to go. In other words, what is the reason for this special
fault_setjmp/fault_longjmp?

Jan