From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6670 invoked by alias); 28 Oct 2014 19:43:15 -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 6661 invoked by uid 89); 28 Oct 2014 19:43:14 -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-f54.google.com Received: from mail-yh0-f54.google.com (HELO mail-yh0-f54.google.com) (209.85.213.54) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 19:43:13 +0000 Received: by mail-yh0-f54.google.com with SMTP id 29so757791yhl.27 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 12:43:11 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.236.17.197 with SMTP id j45mr5170325yhj.49.1414525391068; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 12:43:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.170.140.214 with HTTP; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 12:43:11 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <544FCC92.80309@redhat.com> References: <1412848358-9958-1-git-send-email-gbenson@redhat.com> <1412848358-9958-2-git-send-email-gbenson@redhat.com> <544F925C.20408@redhat.com> <544FCC92.80309@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 19:43:00 -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/msg00786.txt.bz2 On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 10:04 AM, Pedro Alves wrote: > 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. Ergo my followup request: Can a comment please be added to the declaration of current_lwp_ptid explaining this? [I don't have a strong preference for documenting this naming choice with this particular function, but it's as good a place as any for me.]