Hi Simon and Ulrich,

Thank you so much for the Feeback.  I have made the space adjustments. Please find attached the patch [See Fix-for-multiple-thread-detection-in-AIX.patch]

If there is no issues, I will push the patch in git. Kindly let me know.

Have a nice day ahead.

Thanks and regards,
Aditya.
________________________________
From: Ulrich Weigand <Ulrich.Weigand@de.ibm.com>
Sent: 05 August 2022 17:23
To: simark@simark.ca <simark@simark.ca>; Aditya Kamath1 <Aditya.Kamath1@ibm.com>; simon.marchi@efficios.com <simon.marchi@efficios.com>; Sangamesh Mallayya <sangamesh.swamy@in.ibm.com>; gdb-patches@sourceware.org <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix-for-multiple-thread-detection-in-AIX.patch

Aditya Kamath1 <Aditya.Kamath1@ibm.com> wrote:

>I have moved the scope + switch_to_current_thread to pdc_read_data()
>where the dependency is needed in the call-backs as suggested by
>Ulrich. I also eliminated PD_USER variable as it is no longer needed.
>As far as the user_current_pid != 0 condition is concerned, we need
>this check during initialisation during the birth of the first
>inferior. We passed a parameter inferior_ptid.pid () in pd_enable ()
>which is 0 at that time.

This looks good to me, with just some coding-style / formatting
issues:

+    /* Before the first inferior is added, we pass inferior_ptid.pid()
from pd_enable() which
+       is 0. There is no need to switch threads during first
initialisation. In the rest
+       of the callbacks the current thread needs to be correct. */

Please use two spaces after each '.' in comments.  Also, watch the
maximum line length of 80.

+    if (user_current_pid != 0)
+      switch_to_thread (current_inferior ()->process_target ()
,ptid_t(user_current_pid));


There should be a space after the "," and after "ptid_t" before the '('
.

Patch should be good to go with these changes.

Thanks,
Ulrich