From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27051 invoked by alias); 22 Nov 2002 18:58:50 -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 27042 invoked from network); 22 Nov 2002 18:58:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 22 Nov 2002 18:58:46 -0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (nat-pool-rdu-dmz.redhat.com [172.16.52.200]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gAMIYfP29831 for ; Fri, 22 Nov 2002 13:34:41 -0500 Received: from potter.sfbay.redhat.com (potter.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.15]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gAMIwis12186; Fri, 22 Nov 2002 13:58:44 -0500 Received: from redhat.com (reddwarf.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.24.50]) by potter.sfbay.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gAMIwiM24478; Fri, 22 Nov 2002 10:58:44 -0800 Message-ID: <3DDE7E64.F9EC57A6@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 10:58:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder Organization: Red Hat, Inc. X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Cagney CC: Daniel Jacobowitz , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: PATCH/RFC: Bring lin-lwp performance back to the real world References: <20021122041123.GA21389@nevyn.them.org> <3DDDB7B5.2070809@redhat.com> <20021122052939.GA26668@nevyn.them.org> <3DDDC753.2010205@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-11/txt/msg00551.txt.bz2 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