From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-72970-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 26769 invoked by alias); 12 May 2010 18:57:46 -0000
Received: (qmail 26749 invoked by uid 22791); 12 May 2010 18:57:45 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 12 May 2010 18:57:39 +0000
Received: (qmail 26479 invoked from network); 12 May 2010 18:57:37 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO orlando.localnet) (pedro@127.0.0.2)  by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 12 May 2010 18:57:37 -0000
From: Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com>
To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] persistence of schedlock mode
Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 19:25:00 -0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.12.2 (Linux/2.6.31-20-generic; KDE/4.3.2; x86_64; ; )
Cc: Michael Snyder <msnyder@vmware.com>
References: <4BEAEEB0.5040202@vmware.com>
In-Reply-To: <4BEAEEB0.5040202@vmware.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;  charset="iso-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201005121957.34851.pedro@codesourcery.com>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2010-05/txt/msg00263.txt.bz2

On Wednesday 12 May 2010 19:08:48, Michael Snyder wrote:
> Bug 11580 points out a problem related to persistence of the
> scheduler locking mode.  If you set the mode to "on" (which
> means that only one thread can run), and then kill and restart
> your program, the mode persists and your program may deadlock.
> 
> I don't think this is a problem for mode "step", and it could
> be argued that mode "on" is "use at your own risk".  However
> I've been thinking about how to resolve it, and this simple
> but intrusive patch is what I come up with.
> 
> Comments?

I think this is not a good idea.  (I added a larger comment on
the PR before noticing this email).

-- 
Pedro Alves