From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17953 invoked by alias); 11 Jul 2014 11:28:27 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 17919 invoked by uid 89); 11 Jul 2014 11:28:23 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 11 Jul 2014 11:28:21 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s6BBSKlb020158 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 11 Jul 2014 07:28:20 -0400 Received: from blade.nx (ovpn-116-128.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.128]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s6BBSJqh003957; Fri, 11 Jul 2014 07:28:19 -0400 Received: by blade.nx (Postfix, from userid 1000) id A2DD22640C5; Fri, 11 Jul 2014 12:28:18 +0100 (BST) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 12:34:00 -0000 From: Gary Benson To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Mark Kettenis Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7 v2] Refactor shared code in {i386,amd64}-linux-nat.c Message-ID: <20140711112818.GA1930@blade.nx> References: <1403878351-22974-1-git-send-email-gbenson@redhat.com> <53BD40E6.8000701@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <53BD40E6.8000701@redhat.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-07/txt/msg00261.txt.bz2 Pedro Alves wrote: > On 06/27/2014 03:12 PM, Gary Benson wrote: > > This series is an updated version of the series I posted this > > morning. Mark Kettenis rightly pointed out that > > x86_linux_read_description was a mess of #ifdef spaghetti so > > I have rewritten it. > > > > Patch 2 has changed because that's where the > > x86_linux_read_description merge is. Patch 6 has changed because > > that's where the code is pulled from {i386,amd64}-linux-nat.c into > > x86-linux-nat.c. The remaining patches are the same. > > > > I've inlined the original description of the series below. > > > > Is this ok to commit? > > I read this, and apart from a couple nits, it all looked good to me. > > I think we can take Mark's silence as meaning his objections have > been addressed, but in case he just didn't have time to reply, let's > wait till Friday, and then push this in. Pushed with the changes you suggested. Thanks, Gary -- http://gbenson.net/