From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24989 invoked by alias); 28 Oct 2014 17:12:41 -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 24979 invoked by uid 89); 28 Oct 2014 17:12:40 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-yh0-f45.google.com Received: from mail-yh0-f45.google.com (HELO mail-yh0-f45.google.com) (209.85.213.45) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 17:12:39 +0000 Received: by mail-yh0-f45.google.com with SMTP id f73so545685yha.32 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 10:12:37 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.170.115.16 with SMTP id h16mr4890758ykb.109.1414516357544; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 10:12:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.170.140.214 with HTTP; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 10:12:37 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <1412848358-9958-1-git-send-email-gbenson@redhat.com> <1412848358-9958-2-git-send-email-gbenson@redhat.com> <544F925C.20408@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 17:12:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/13 v2] Introduce current_lwp_ptid From: Doug Evans To: Pedro Alves Cc: Gary Benson , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-10/txt/msg00783.txt.bz2 On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 9:44 AM, Doug Evans wrote: > On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 5:55 AM, Pedro Alves wrote: >> On 10/09/2014 10:52 AM, Gary Benson wrote: >>> This commit introduces a new function, current_lwp_ptid, that >>> shared Linux code can use to obtain the ptid of the current >>> lightweight process. >> >> OK. > > Hi. The name bothers me enough to speak up. > > I'm ok with lwp being a member of ptid, but we're essentially > replacing "thread" with "lwp". > Is there a particular reason current_lwp_ptid is chosen over > current_thread_ptid? Hi. In an attempt to answer my own question, I can imagine that "lwp" is the linux backend's term for "thread". OK. [This is probably written down somewhere, but a comment to that effect in the definition of current_lwp_ptid would be helpful.]