From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12116 invoked by alias); 27 Aug 2010 00:04:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 12028 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Aug 2010 00:04:34 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com (HELO smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com) (65.115.85.73) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 27 Aug 2010 00:04:30 +0000 Received: from mailhost3.vmware.com (mailhost3.vmware.com [10.16.27.45]) by smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2E2259016; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 17:04:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from msnyder-server.eng.vmware.com (promd-2s-dhcp138.eng.vmware.com [10.20.124.138]) by mailhost3.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C903ACD961; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 17:04:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4C77010C.60607@vmware.com> Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 00:04:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100702) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pedro Alves CC: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: [commit] [gdbserver/linux] access memory of running processes References: <201008270026.22929.pedro@codesourcery.com> <4C76F8B8.9050502@vmware.com> <201008270102.43464.pedro@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <201008270102.43464.pedro@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2010-08/txt/msg00455.txt.bz2 Pedro Alves wrote: > On Friday 27 August 2010 00:28:56, Michael Snyder wrote: >> Hmmm, don't like "unprepare_to_access_memory". >> >> What about "finish_accessing_memory"? > > Hmm, I don't like "finish", since the access has finished > already when we call this function. How about "done_accessing_memory"? Done is good. > > Any other suggestions/nits? :-) Yeah! I don't like "Pedro". Why don't you change it to "Pecos Pete"? ;-)