From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25572 invoked by alias); 4 Apr 2014 09:48:41 -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 25560 invoked by uid 89); 4 Apr 2014 09:48:40 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_SOFTFAIL autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mtaout22.012.net.il Received: from mtaout22.012.net.il (HELO mtaout22.012.net.il) (80.179.55.172) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 04 Apr 2014 09:48:39 +0000 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout22.012.net.il by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0N3I0020034EUW00@a-mtaout22.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Fri, 04 Apr 2014 12:48:37 +0300 (IDT) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0N3I00250390AJA0@a-mtaout22.012.net.il>; Fri, 04 Apr 2014 12:48:37 +0300 (IDT) Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2014 09:48:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: [rfc] btrace: control memory access during replay In-reply-to: To: "Metzger, Markus T" Cc: palves@redhat.com, jan.kratochvil@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: <8338hta0hm.fsf@gnu.org> References: <1396601781-25010-1-git-send-email-markus.t.metzger@intel.com> <8361mpa1z9.fsf@gnu.org> X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-04/txt/msg00059.txt.bz2 > From: "Metzger, Markus T" > CC: "palves@redhat.com" , "jan.kratochvil@redhat.com" > , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" > > Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2014 09:42:46 +0000 > > > Other than that, the documentation parts are approved. However, I > > wonder whether "allow-memory-access" is a good name for a setting > > which actually allows access to writable portion of the memory. IOW, > > even when the value is OFF, we do allow access to memory, just not the > > writable portion of it. > > Agreed; allow-access-to-writable-memory-while-replaying is a bit long, though. How about access-writable-memory?