Re: PATCH/RFC: Bring lin-lwp performance back to the real world

[Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com>]

Andrew Cagney wrote:
> 
> >
> > Hrm, possibly.  I needed to create linux-nat.c anyway (I'll need it for
> > some things that are definitely not /proc related) but I could be
> > persuaded either way on linux_proc_xfer_memory.  It's not focused on
> > the "proc" bit as much as the "xfer" bit, but it's definitely using
> > /proc.  If you prefer I'll move it, and save linux-nat.c for another
> > patch.
> 
> Not really my problem (It's a linux / lin-lwp area).  I just figure
> that, if you put it in linux-proc.c, you've a more compelling argument
> for getting the change into 5.3 (as if I'm going to stand in its way :-):
> 
> - linux-proc.c provides you with the `prior art'.  The other code in
> that file is pulling an identical trick - using /proc when it should
> really be using ptrace().
> 
> - it trims the change back to something more managable (all the config
> parts go) so it is easier to be sure it's right.
> 
> enjoy,
> Andrew

Honest, I made my reply before reading Andrew's!  ;-)
Daniel, that's two votes for using linux-proc.c.

Michael