From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 124421 invoked by alias); 10 Sep 2018 19:11:19 -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 124402 invoked by uid 89); 10 Sep 2018 19:11:18 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: eggs.gnu.org Received: from eggs.gnu.org (HELO eggs.gnu.org) (208.118.235.92) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 10 Sep 2018 19:11:17 +0000 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fzRaa-0003jM-KY for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Mon, 10 Sep 2018 15:11:15 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:47534) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fzRaa-0003jI-Gj; Mon, 10 Sep 2018 15:11:12 -0400 Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=2773 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1fzRaa-0003QQ-3K; Mon, 10 Sep 2018 15:11:12 -0400 Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2018 19:11:00 -0000 Message-Id: <83ftyhnp60.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: John Baldwin CC: simon.marchi@ericsson.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: (message from John Baldwin on Mon, 10 Sep 2018 11:13:19 -0700) Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] Add a new 'info proc files' subcommand of 'info proc'. References: <20180908003659.37482-1-jhb@FreeBSD.org> <20180908003659.37482-3-jhb@FreeBSD.org> <83bm98trel.fsf@gnu.org> <83worvqm52.fsf@gnu.org> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2018-09/txt/msg00297.txt.bz2 > Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org > From: John Baldwin > Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2018 11:13:19 -0700 > > > Then let's say > > > > List of files open by the specified process. > > I'm fine with that, but we should probably make the descriptions under > 'info proc' a bit more consistent in general as a followup. Yes.