From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10617 invoked by alias); 7 Jan 2015 14:36:10 -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 10603 invoked by uid 89); 7 Jan 2015 14:36:09 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 07 Jan 2015 14:36:08 +0000 Received: from int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.27]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t07Ea4fV017453 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 7 Jan 2015 09:36:04 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t07EZvek020134; Wed, 7 Jan 2015 09:36:00 -0500 Message-ID: <54AD444C.7050103@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2015 14:36:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Yao Qi CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/8] linux-nat.c: better starvation avoidance, handle non-stop mode too References: <1419625871-28848-1-git-send-email-palves@redhat.com> <1419625871-28848-7-git-send-email-palves@redhat.com> <8761cjul2b.fsf@codesourcery.com> <54AD330E.5020007@redhat.com> <87wq4yu1i0.fsf@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <87wq4yu1i0.fsf@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2015-01/txt/msg00109.txt.bz2 On 01/07/2015 02:08 PM, Yao Qi wrote: > Pedro Alves writes: > >> That is, the LWP had previously stopped for a breakpoint, and we >> left that event pending. But if the breakpoint is now gone, >> GDB core isn't interested in it anymore, so we just discard >> that event. > > The breakpoint is gone because it is removed by user, for example, > it that correct? Yeah, removed for any reason, really. Another example would be because it was a step-resume breakpoint for another thread and that other thread no longer needs it, so GDB meanwhile removed it. > >> Here's the updated patch. > > It looks good to me. Thank you for the review. Pedro Alves