From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14197 invoked by alias); 27 Aug 2003 02:19:12 -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 14188 invoked from network); 27 Aug 2003 02:19:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 27 Aug 2003 02:19:11 -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 h7R2JAl04814 for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2003 22:19:10 -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 h7R2ItL20889; Tue, 26 Aug 2003 22:18:56 -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 h7R2Itw12513; Tue, 26 Aug 2003 19:18:55 -0700 Message-ID: <3F4C150F.8090802@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 02:19:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder Organization: Red Hat, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, kettenis@gnu.org Subject: Re: RFA: lin-lwp cleanup References: <20030826193221.GA1885@nevyn.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20030826193221.GA1885@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-08/txt/msg00465.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > This patch doesn't do anything particularly important. I just moved some > code from stop_wait_callback out to a new function. I thought I'd need it > for my next patch; I turned out not to, but it's still cleaner this way. > > Also fixes the two small problems I asked Jeff about earlier today - an > extra call to lin_lwp_thread_alive and a missing delete_thread. > > Is this OK? > There's a bit more here than code movement -- the new code is not identical to the old, even allowing for the jjohnstn changes. If you'll say a word or two about the differences, I expect I'll approve them.