From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20345 invoked by alias); 2 Aug 2007 14:00:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 20334 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Aug 2007 14:00:37 -0000 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DK_POLICY_SIGNSOME,FORGED_RCVD_HELO X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from wildebeest.demon.nl (HELO gnu.wildebeest.org) (83.160.170.119) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 02 Aug 2007 14:00:30 +0000 Received: from dijkstra.wildebeest.org ([192.168.1.29]) by gnu.wildebeest.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IGbGg-0007vx-2U; Thu, 02 Aug 2007 16:03:10 +0200 Subject: Re: putting Ptrace back to 64-bit From: Mark Wielaard To: Andrew Cagney Cc: frysk@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <46B1D016.909@redhat.com> References: <46B14863.60601@redhat.com> <1186043998.15044.47.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org> <46B1D016.909@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 14:00:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1186063226.15044.76.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.8.3 (2.8.3-2.fc6) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -4.4 (----) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact frysk-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: frysk-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-q3/txt/msg00263.txt.bz2 Hi Andrew, On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 08:37 -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > Mark Wielaard wrote: > > On Wed, 2007-08-01 at 22:58 -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >> I don't understand the rationale behind this change: > > > > It was proposed and explained as a follow up for the LogicalMemoryBuffer > > under "A couple of things to note, questions and upcoming work" at: > > http://sourceware.org/ml/frysk/2007-q3/msg00163.html > > And the rationale was again added when the actual patch to implement it > > was posted: http://sourceware.org/ml/frysk/2007-q3/msg00216.html > > Please run such things directly past me. I am happy for people to review my patches before committing. But you have to give me some guidance here since till now we didn't have any formal reviews, but were relying on unit tests to catch any badness. In this case I thought it was a simple cleanup refactoring to make the real work that I was doing easier and the code safer (as explained in that first email). What kind of changes do you want to have reviewed first and by who. Do you want people to be CCed on such patches? Can't we just make it so that if a patch is posted to the list anybody can review it to make sure it is sane? Cheers, Mark