From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 70515 invoked by alias); 25 Feb 2016 01:45:40 -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 70482 invoked by uid 89); 25 Feb 2016 01:45:36 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= 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; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 01:45:36 +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 (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2932C7F08A; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 01:45:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u1P1jXji003062; Wed, 24 Feb 2016 20:45:34 -0500 Message-ID: <56CE5CBD.9070105@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 01:45:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, "Maciej W. Rozycki" Subject: Re: [PATCH] Handle MIPS Linux SIGTRAP siginfo.si_code values References: <1456332239-24007-1-git-send-email-palves@redhat.com> <56CDFB9B.3090708@redhat.com> <56CE3AA6.6090005@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2016-02/txt/msg00770.txt.bz2 On 02/25/2016 01:39 AM, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > Did GDB itself check for SI_KERNEL before your recent rewrite? No, it did not. > >> I've just finished testing it on s390 -- no regressions. I've >> pushed it in now, as is. I'll follow up with a new patch that makes >> gdb accept the anticipated new si_codes too. > > I'm fine with waiting for any outcome from a discussion with kernel > people before pushing such a change. Ack. Thanks, Pedro Alves