From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <eliz@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org (eggs.gnu.org [209.51.188.92])
 by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EAB013858436
 for <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>; Mon, 11 Jul 2022 18:29:48 +0000 (GMT)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org EAB013858436
Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:57542)
 by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
 (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <eliz@gnu.org>)
 id 1oAyAG-00077A-AW; Mon, 11 Jul 2022 14:29:48 -0400
Received: from [87.69.77.57] (port=1515 helo=home-c4e4a596f7)
 by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
 (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <eliz@gnu.org>)
 id 1oAyAF-0003j5-QB; Mon, 11 Jul 2022 14:29:48 -0400
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2022 21:29:35 +0300
Message-Id: <8335f7zenk.fsf@gnu.org>
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
To: Pedro Alves <pedro@palves.net>
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
In-Reply-To: <335857f3-f319-0bca-a964-c31a3f5ab449@palves.net> (message from
 Pedro Alves on Mon, 11 Jul 2022 19:18:56 +0100)
Subject: Re: [PATCH 19/25] Don't resume new threads if scheduler-locking is in
 effect
References: <20220620225419.382221-1-pedro@palves.net>
 <20220620225419.382221-20-pedro@palves.net> <83a6a6l1fk.fsf@gnu.org>
 <72ce23b7-6e3c-b867-6d96-9df93fba5cfb@palves.net> <83mtdfzma7.fsf@gnu.org>
 <bfbfe633-b7c5-8d4a-95b0-fb6071044c63@palves.net> <83h73nzk59.fsf@gnu.org>
 <891ff735-3153-787e-cd6c-621180bf341b@palves.net> <83edyrzisp.fsf@gnu.org>
 <65b0807a-67b2-04a0-c82e-09209d8fc176@palves.net> <834jznzgfw.fsf@gnu.org>
 <335857f3-f319-0bca-a964-c31a3f5ab449@palves.net>
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,
 DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF,
 RCVD_IN_BARRACUDACENTRAL, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS, TXREP,
 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on
 server2.sourceware.org
X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://sourceware.org/mailman/options/gdb-patches>,
 <mailto:gdb-patches-request@sourceware.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-request@sourceware.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://sourceware.org/mailman/listinfo/gdb-patches>,
 <mailto:gdb-patches-request@sourceware.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2022 18:29:50 -0000

> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> From: Pedro Alves <pedro@palves.net>
> Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2022 19:18:56 +0100
> 
> > Fine, but is something wrong with the text I proposed?
> > 
> 
> Yes, you said to put it before the description of how the replay mode behaves,
> and your text implies the change only affects "on" and "step", while it
> affects "replay" as well.  As I said, the change affects all cases of
> actually locking the scheduler, so it is not appropriate to single out just
> some modes.

But "replay" behaves either as "on" or as "off", and the effect of
"on" on new threads is covered by the text I proposed.  So I don't see
the problem with it being before the description of "replay".

The advantage of my proposal is that it doesn't interrupt the
continuity of the description of how "on" and "step" affect the
threads created by the single thread being resumed.  The description
of "replay" is an interruption.