From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21481 invoked by alias); 28 Aug 2003 14:20:35 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 21461 invoked from network); 28 Aug 2003 14:20:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 28 Aug 2003 14:20:34 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.22 #1 (Debian)) id 19sNdZ-0000iv-Rf for ; Thu, 28 Aug 2003 10:20:33 -0400 Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 14:20:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFA: lin-lwp cleanup Message-ID: <20030828142033.GA2731@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20030826193221.GA1885@nevyn.them.org> <3F4C150F.8090802@redhat.com> <20030827040026.GA23492@nevyn.them.org> <3F4CEC99.6010607@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3F4CEC99.6010607@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-08/txt/msg00505.txt.bz2 On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 10:38:33AM -0700, Michael Snyder wrote: > Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > >On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 07:18:55PM -0700, Michael Snyder wrote: > > > >>Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > >> > >>>This patch doesn't do anything particularly important. I just moved some > >>>code from stop_wait_callback out to a new function. I thought I'd need > >>>it > >>>for my next patch; I turned out not to, but it's still cleaner this way. > >>> > >>>Also fixes the two small problems I asked Jeff about earlier today - an > >>>extra call to lin_lwp_thread_alive and a missing delete_thread. > >>> > >>>Is this OK? > >>> > >> > >>There's a bit more here than code movement -- the new code is not > >>identical to the old, even allowing for the jjohnstn changes. > >> > >>If you'll say a word or two about the differences, I expect I'll approve > >>them. > > > > > >The differences are exactly those two. There were two copies of the > >code which called delete_lwp, and one of them was missing > >delete_thread; so I collapsed them together. And there was a block > >which checked lin_lwp_thread_alive, now gone. > > > >Oh, I changed the text of the first error message from "exited" to > >"vanished" so that we could tell from the logs which case was used. > > > > OK then. Looks fine to me. Thanks, checked in then. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer