From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15277 invoked by alias); 27 Aug 2003 17:38:56 -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 15265 invoked from network); 27 Aug 2003 17:38:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 27 Aug 2003 17:38:55 -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 h7RHcrl04387 for ; Wed, 27 Aug 2003 13:38:53 -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 h7RHcYL00396; Wed, 27 Aug 2003 13:38:34 -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 h7RHcXw18219; Wed, 27 Aug 2003 10:38:33 -0700 Message-ID: <3F4CEC99.6010607@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 17:38:00 -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> <3F4C150F.8090802@redhat.com> <20030827040026.GA23492@nevyn.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20030827040026.GA23492@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-08/txt/msg00483.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 07:18:55PM -0700, Michael Snyder wrote: > >>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. > > > The differences are exactly those two. There were two copies of the > code which called delete_lwp, and one of them was missing > delete_thread; so I collapsed them together. And there was a block > which checked lin_lwp_thread_alive, now gone. > > Oh, I changed the text of the first error message from "exited" to > "vanished" so that we could tell from the logs which case was used. > OK then. Looks fine to me.