From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1917 invoked by alias); 9 Jul 2014 13:17:33 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 1904 invoked by uid 89); 9 Jul 2014 13:17:31 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 09 Jul 2014 13:17:30 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s69DHSvg016304 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 9 Jul 2014 09:17:29 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s69DHQnt029209; Wed, 9 Jul 2014 09:17:27 -0400 Message-ID: <53BD40E6.8000701@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2014 13:17:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Gary Benson , gdb-patches@sourceware.org CC: Mark Kettenis Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7 v2] Refactor shared code in {i386,amd64}-linux-nat.c References: <1403878351-22974-1-git-send-email-gbenson@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <1403878351-22974-1-git-send-email-gbenson@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2014-07/txt/msg00186.txt.bz2 On 06/27/2014 03:12 PM, Gary Benson wrote: > Hi all, > > This series is an updated version of the series I posted this morning. > Mark Kettenis rightly pointed out that x86_linux_read_description was > a mess of #ifdef spaghetti so I have rewritten it. > > Patch 2 has changed because that's where the x86_linux_read_description > merge is. Patch 6 has changed because that's where the code is pulled > from {i386,amd64}-linux-nat.c into x86-linux-nat.c. The remaining > patches are the same. > > I've inlined the original description of the series below. > > Is this ok to commit? I read this, and apart from a couple nits, it all looked good to me. I think we can take Mark's silence as meaning his objections have been addressed, but in case he just didn't have time to reply, let's wait till Friday, and then push this in. Thanks! -- Pedro Alves