From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31153 invoked by alias); 31 May 2012 14:51:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 31140 invoked by uid 22791); 31 May 2012 14:51:06 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,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; Thu, 31 May 2012 14:50:48 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q4VEog7D018246 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 31 May 2012 10:50:43 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q4VEofL4009747; Thu, 31 May 2012 10:50:42 -0400 Message-ID: <4FC78541.2040200@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 14:51:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120430 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Yao Qi CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] define and check itset References: <1338470075-12254-1-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> <1338470075-12254-2-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> <4FC7734E.5020401@redhat.com> <4FC77EDB.8040005@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <4FC77EDB.8040005@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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: 2012-05/txt/msg01085.txt.bz2 On 05/31/2012 03:23 PM, Yao Qi wrote: > On 05/31/2012 09:34 PM, Pedro Alves wrote: >> What good does it do to put this in ahead of its prerequisites? >> Can we please stop trying to put the cart before the horse? >> I'm trying to help with the async stuff, but the constant push >> in trying to put other bits in first frustrates me. :-/ >> > > I don't want to frustrates anyone here. This bit doesn't have any > prerequisites, as I said, it is quite isolated from other parts. I > don't see anything wrong this bits go in first. It's useless on its own. > The review process to > patch series 'run all-stop on top of non-stop' is not smooth, which > forces me to start to push this part first. Sorry, but nothing should be forcing you to do that. I wrote most of that series, so its natural that others expect me to review it first; and most probably nobody else feels very qualified to review it. But I never considered that code final, and I want to get back to play with the series a bit more, not just review what I already had, but unfortunately, I keep getting distracted with reviews, etc., so I'm progressing quite slowly. Apologies. But it'll get done. E.g., my recent new_thread_event patch is preparatory work. I'm working on some other cleanup that ends up addressing PR11692. I need to get back to the MI async issue. >> > The itsets bits need to be last. I'm not even sure the syntax is >> > what we want to end up with at all. Last I touched them, I had >> > wanted to spend a while trying to unify the concept of "current >> > thread" with the itset. There's a disconnect that gets in the >> > way a bit. > I don't know your plan, and you are free to change whatever you'd like > to. AFAICS, the syntax looks fine to me, so I posted them. My plan is to make async good enough to flip it on; hack on all-stop-on-top-of-non-stop some more, and put that in. And only then we'll get back to itsets. -- Pedro Alves