From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 59495 invoked by alias); 12 Jul 2019 12:24:02 -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 59473 invoked by uid 89); 12 Jul 2019 12:24:01 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy= 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 ESMTP; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 12:23:51 +0000 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 99C1C30842A8; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 12:23:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from f29-4.lan (ovpn-117-224.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.117.224]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 67E1D5D71A; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 12:23:50 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2019 12:24:00 -0000 From: Kevin Buettner To: Tom de Vries Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Pedro Alves Subject: Re: [PING][PATCH] Fix amd64->i386 linux syscall restart problem Message-ID: <20190712052349.380f369f@f29-4.lan> In-Reply-To: <54a90435-e80e-6028-1007-db4423669850@suse.de> References: <20190316221341.021f7c62@f29-4.lan> <975e7120-1b61-2807-5aab-b961e07a80d0@redhat.com> <20190409192916.79fcb539@f29-4.lan> <20190410171606.0e736077@f29-4.lan> <40eb20c2-f6d0-eb16-d6fe-c717138b6559@suse.de> <20190708100001.6f2bc0fc@f29-4.lan> <54a90435-e80e-6028-1007-db4423669850@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2019-07/txt/msg00345.txt.bz2 Hi Tom, Yes, that's right, those two commits are needed. I've looked it over. It looks good to me. Kevin On Fri, 12 Jul 2019 13:42:51 +0200 Tom de Vries wrote: > On 08-07-19 19:00, Kevin Buettner wrote: > > > > On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 08:34:46 +0200 > > Tom de Vries wrote: > > > >> On 21-05-19 14:59, Tom de Vries wrote: > >>> On 11-04-19 02:16, Kevin Buettner wrote: > >>>> On Wed, 10 Apr 2019 12:42:30 +0100 > >>>> Pedro Alves wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>> Below is a diff showing the new comments. It also includes the > >>>>>> changes which wrap the multi-line expressions in parens. > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks, that new version of the comment looks great. > >>>> > >>>> It's in now. Thanks for the review. > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> the tests fixed by this commit fail on the 8.3 branch (filed as PR24592). > >>> > >>> The commit applies cleanly on the 8.3 branch, and make the tests pass. > >>> > >>> OK to backport? > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> [ Ping. ] > >> > >> I'm probably missing some context here. It seems sofar there are no > >> commits to the 8.3 branch. AFAIU, a respin release 8.3.1 is targeted for > >> 3 months after 8.3, so around 11th of August. > >> > >> What kind of fixes are acceptable for the respin? Do they have to be > >> regression fixes? Or are functionality fixes like this one also allowed? > >> Who's responsibility is it to backport fixes? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> - Tom > > > > I'm okay with it going into the next point release for 8.3. > > Hi Kevin, > > I noticed the follow-up commit e90a813d96 "Fix regression caused by > recently added syscall restart code". I reproduced the regression with > the 8.3 branch + commit 3f52fdbcb5, and confirmed that the follow-up > commit fixes it, so I suppose this one is necessary as well. > > Since this is the first time I'm pushing something to a gdb release > branch, I'm posting here the two pre-commit-formatted patches for review. > > Thanks, > - Tom > >