From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12581 invoked by alias); 18 Jun 2003 23:27:53 -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 12574 invoked from network); 18 Jun 2003 23:27:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 18 Jun 2003 23:27:52 -0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (nat-pool-rdu-dmz.redhat.com [172.16.52.200] (may be forged)) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5INRqH31613 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 19:27:52 -0400 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 h5INRpS04805; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 19:27:51 -0400 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 h5INRpK29298; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 16:27:51 -0700 Message-ID: <3EF0F576.8040305@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 23:27:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder Organization: Red Hat, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20021003 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFA: Collect unexplained stopped threads in lin-lwp References: <20030618231609.GA394@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-06/txt/msg00609.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > [Michael, you more or less approved this patch in December, but it's seen a > few changes - linux_record_stopped_pid isn't a dummy any more.] > > This patch just accepts processes we aren't currently debugging which report > a SIGSTOP, and throws them onto a list. Not very useful by itself, but my > next patch will both cause this to happen (by enabling fork events) and > empty the list when it receives fork events. I'm only submitting it > separately, because it was the last meaningful piece I could break out. > > Is this OK? > I realize these are not the same as LWPs, but is there any reason you can't throw them in the existing LWP list, and then pull them out discriminately? (if that's a word...) Just a suggestion. If there is a reason, then yes, approved.