Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] riscv: Introduce support for hardware break/watchpoints

[Conor Dooley]

On Thu, Feb 26, 2026 at 11:05:14AM +0530, Anup Patel wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2026 at 2:31 PM Conor Dooley <conor@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 25, 2026 at 10:33:27AM +0530, Himanshu Chauhan wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 24, 2026 at 1:33 PM Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Feb 24, 2026 at 09:30:24AM +0530, Himanshu Chauhan wrote:
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Feb 23, 2026 at 3:55 PM Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Feb 23, 2026 at 10:19:17AM +0530, Himanshu Chauhan wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > > Did you miss the comment at the end about the remaining TODOs?
> > >
> > > No. As I mentioned in the cover letter, the ptrace support is not
> > > implemented here. I am actively working on it and these are
> > > implemented in ptrace work.
> > > The test is done using the perf events directly. The second patch in
> > > this patch set has the test application.
> >
> > Then the patchset should still be marked RFC, since it is not finished.
> 
> Wow! let's all of us post only large series (covering multiple features)
> which are difficult to review instead of making life easier for reviewers
> through incremental series which make gradual progress over-time.

Where did I say don't post it? In fact, marking it RFC *requires*
posting it. Don't put words in my mouth.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature