From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-117108-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 27561 invoked by alias); 28 Oct 2014 17:13:40 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
Received: (qmail 27549 invoked by uid 89); 28 Oct 2014 17:13:39 -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-f43.google.com
Received: from mail-yh0-f43.google.com (HELO mail-yh0-f43.google.com) (209.85.213.43) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 17:13:38 +0000
Received: by mail-yh0-f43.google.com with SMTP id z6so551903yhz.2        for <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 10:13:36 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.236.17.197 with SMTP id j45mr4280998yhj.49.1414516416557; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 10:13:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.170.140.214 with HTTP; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 10:13:36 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAP9bCMQgL74TcqGervCvk9Q9h4=XpG6iGOt51YMEWcZ=x4AEQA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1412848358-9958-1-git-send-email-gbenson@redhat.com>	<1412848358-9958-2-git-send-email-gbenson@redhat.com>	<544F925C.20408@redhat.com>	<CAP9bCMTzML+6ZNjEewyBy4eYsU3OGi0OYjDsP17bRyPqVVJL9A@mail.gmail.com>	<CAP9bCMQgL74TcqGervCvk9Q9h4=XpG6iGOt51YMEWcZ=x4AEQA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 17:13:00 -0000
Message-ID: <CAP9bCMR4gCAoYreyQpgyu41eWNwcn3m+98CvVC=+1zduiwDV2Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/13 v2] Introduce current_lwp_ptid
From: Doug Evans <xdje42@gmail.com>
To: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
Cc: Gary Benson <gbenson@redhat.com>, 	"gdb-patches@sourceware.org" <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-IsSubscribed: yes
X-SW-Source: 2014-10/txt/msg00784.txt.bz2

On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 10:12 AM, Doug Evans <xdje42@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 9:44 AM, Doug Evans <xdje42@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 5:55 AM, Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> 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.]

Well, OK, to be more precise s/in the definition/in the declaration/.