On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 01:32:19PM +0900, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 08:04:57AM -0500, Jason Wessel wrote:Yes, splitting the patch would be much better for sorting out the stable
I added the patch to kgdb-next after fixing up the context since it noSince Will asked me to split this patch into a few, I need some reworks
longer applied to the mainline (
https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/jwessel/kgdb.git/log/?h=kgdb-next).
If there is further discussion on the point above, another patch can be
added, but it I am assuming this is the way you desire it to work as
there are some other architectures that use the same behaviour. I do
not presently have any ARM64 hardware to validate this particular
change.
I also added to the patch a "Cc: linux-stable <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>"
so we can have this appear on some of the older kernels.
to clarify which hunks in the patch are necessary for which version of kernel.
backports too. Jason, please can you drop the patch for now? I don't mind
whether the end result goes via arm64 or kgdb, but we should at least both
agree on it first :)