From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13082 invoked by alias); 28 Oct 2014 18:35:51 -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 13072 invoked by uid 89); 28 Oct 2014 18:35:50 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.3 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; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 18:35:49 +0000 Received: from int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.26]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s9SIZk8b010109 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 28 Oct 2014 14:35:47 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s9SH4ImC017648; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 13:04:19 -0400 Message-ID: <544FCC92.80309@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 18:35:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Doug Evans CC: Gary Benson , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/13 v2] Introduce current_lwp_ptid References: <1412848358-9958-1-git-send-email-gbenson@redhat.com> <1412848358-9958-2-git-send-email-gbenson@redhat.com> <544F925C.20408@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2014-10/txt/msg00785.txt.bz2 On 10/28/2014 04:44 PM, Doug Evans wrote: > Is there a particular reason current_lwp_ptid is chosen over > current_thread_ptid? For-specific Linux native code, it doesn't really matter that much to call something "thread" or "lwp" nowadays, given with NPTL, we assume a 1:1 model. But this is native Linux code working at the lwp level. The code around this will end up calling iterate_over_lwps. And then x86_linux_dr_get thinks in terms of lwps too. Likewise a all the x86 Linux debug regs related code touched or added by the rest of the series. Using "lwp" here is more consistent. Thanks, Pedro Alves