From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id k48cKoCa5WDOXQAAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Wed, 07 Jul 2021 08:13:52 -0400 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 9DD431F1F2; Wed, 7 Jul 2021 08:13:52 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (server2.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA43E1E01F for ; Wed, 7 Jul 2021 08:13:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A09239518BA for ; Wed, 7 Jul 2021 12:13:51 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail-wr1-f47.google.com (mail-wr1-f47.google.com [209.85.221.47]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F41613850437 for ; Wed, 7 Jul 2021 12:13:37 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org F41613850437 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=palves.net Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Received: by mail-wr1-f47.google.com with SMTP id i94so2809791wri.4 for ; Wed, 07 Jul 2021 05:13:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:from:to:references:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=DUC4WuxixyMZzj8Vj5EnId+MA4iBWQ+Z6c0TxBzqrP4=; b=BWzeTMzRb2Iy6d2rdIc0FnmgLsyNqPhMO8m5pcuV9pHPzyovRRjyGe+EvpE38rfhm8 jjxVasbj1dpfqUjgI/UecQ3PmuZFozWQSAjzxTiX/+KpJs/kUCrusM6N7jO3har+hBcB xTIT2lfHEZE9manKrjTetnmtbilEy9kIWYDjMTAoyCr2gaKqyl6ryyDldcmWGbPM9iRU lGy4RdJgux1RYaGiONGljucR3zWRjFMf9fulZYdExOtVmnoTAaM5Z9IA1+9ubu9GMz5B G2iFPpMFWwUzc6XC8Y24G1pBBi3H9j3+xlVQ25y57eyQX4uDxgVCnBQ58/UT5tqOlMdm Svdg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533/TOxdBwuhmORjj4dTWSDfrOSgKMFtJlDHinh9ZtgQpLgUnDYG KQFEGYRiNeolPq05eGxat2yrG4tnGbHiHg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyhR1sv/fD7+sm4fHyW/yC8oibM0IksTJxWKcHwmg9fTEMyG9IYNU0fxLZk4XVoka1xerUx3g== X-Received: by 2002:adf:ec8b:: with SMTP id z11mr27700992wrn.408.1625660016214; Wed, 07 Jul 2021 05:13:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:8a0:f932:6a00:46bc:d03b:7b3a:2227? ([2001:8a0:f932:6a00:46bc:d03b:7b3a:2227]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s17sm5310307wrv.2.2021.07.07.05.13.35 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 07 Jul 2021 05:13:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/11] gdb: maintain ptid -> thread map, optimize find_thread_ptid From: Pedro Alves To: Simon Marchi , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20210622165704.2404007-1-simon.marchi@polymtl.ca> <20210622165704.2404007-11-simon.marchi@polymtl.ca> <13bc15df-d474-dcb8-9aa0-29ca919e3ef1@polymtl.ca> Message-ID: <53f75299-8fdc-1e27-32be-9df00e95ff26@palves.net> Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2021 13:13:34 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <13bc15df-d474-dcb8-9aa0-29ca919e3ef1@polymtl.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" On 2021-07-06 10:31 p.m., Simon Marchi wrote: >> ( Should this have Co-Authored-By: ? ) > > Yes, and probably not just this patch. I'll go over the series and add > them where needed. > > When picking up somebody else's patch like this, or the intrusive_list > patch, is it better to keep the original author as the Author and add > ourselves with Co-Authored-By, or set the "final" Author as the git > Author and add previous Authors with Co-Authored-By? I don't know whether there's an established de facto rule. I think I'd normally tend to go more by who's the main author of the change, though that's a judgement call. It wouldn't make sense to me to tweak someone else's change in a minor way, add a couple lines, and then make myself "main git author". If the workload was more balanced, I'd just keep the original author and add myself to Co-Authored-By. E.g., today my version of Luis's tag verification change, the actual code change I posted was all written by me from scratch, but the essence of the change isn't that different from Luis's original, so I kept him as main author. In this particular thread map patch, I don't even remember who did what in the patch, I'm fine with how you had it.