From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27568 invoked by alias); 27 Feb 2012 16:31:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 27532 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Feb 2012 16:31:07 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 27 Feb 2012 16:30:54 +0000 Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q1RGUb85030640 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 27 Feb 2012 11:30:37 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q1RGUYHC007930; Mon, 27 Feb 2012 11:30:36 -0500 Message-ID: <4F4BAFAA.3070607@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 17:26:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.1) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joel Brobecker CC: Pedro Alves , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] PR server/9684: gdbserver, attach to stopped processes References: <20120224222127.14659.51317.stgit@hit-nxdomain.opendns.com> <20120224230012.GL2692@adacore.com> In-Reply-To: <20120224230012.GL2692@adacore.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2012-02/txt/msg00631.txt.bz2 On 02/24/2012 11:00 PM, Joel Brobecker wrote: >> I'm a bit ambivalent on this. I found out that this isn't actually >> necessary on recent kernels (I haven't looked for the exact version or >> commit that made it so) -- waitpid no longer hangs. OTOH, we still >> need it on systems with not so recent kernels where support is still >> well active, so I figure this may be useful to many upstream as well. > > FWIW, I tend to agree. If it is possibly useful to others, and it's > not intrusive, it is all good reasons for the patch to go in. I took > a look just to have an idea of what it's about, and it seems like > a reasonably uninvasive patch... Thanks for weighing in. > As always, I always marvel at the beautiful and informative comments > that explain why we have to do all these horrible things :-). I can't take credit for this; I'm just copying Dan's comment from linux-nat.c. -- Pedro Alves