From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-14561-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 15858 invoked by alias); 27 Jun 2003 17:49:51 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 15851 invoked from network); 27 Jun 2003 17:49:51 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO touchme.toronto.redhat.com) (216.129.200.2)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 27 Jun 2003 17:49:51 -0000
Received: from redhat.com (toocool.toronto.redhat.com [172.16.14.72])
	by touchme.toronto.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 1FE6C800041; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 13:49:51 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <3EFC83BF.3070508@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 17:52:00 -0000
From: "J. Johnston" <jjohnstn@redhat.com>
Organization: Red Hat Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>
Cc: David Carlton <carlton@kealia.com>, gdb <gdb@sources.redhat.com>,
	Elena Zannoni <ezannoni@redhat.com>, msnyder@redhat.com
Subject: Re: status of NTPL patches
References: <yf2fzlv1pze.fsf@hawaii.kealia.com> <20030627155234.GA25134@nevyn.them.org> <3EFC6E10.9080006@redhat.com> <20030627162358.GA29641@nevyn.them.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SW-Source: 2003-06/txt/msg00514.txt.bz2



Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 12:17:20PM -0400, J. Johnston wrote:
> 
>>Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 08:48:04AM -0700, David Carlton wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>What's the status of the NTPL patches?  Are they all in mainline yet?
>>>>I'm about to sync my branch with mainline, and I'm curious if I'm
>>>>allowed to tell my local users that it's okay to use it with Red Hat
>>>>9.0 yet.
>>>
>>>
>>>I believe that it should work.
>>>
>>
>>They are all committed except for Michael's rewrite of the gcore patch 
>>which I haven't
>>seen a commit notice for yet.  I don't see any reason it can't be checked 
>>in - Michael?
> 
> 
> Do you mean:
> 2003-06-19  Michael Snyder  <msnyder@redhat.com>
> 
>         * linux-nat.h: New file.
>         * linux-nat.c: Include linux-nat.h.
>         * lin-lwp.c: Include linux-nat.h.  
>         Move struct lwp_info def to linux-nat.h.
>         * linux-proc.c: Include linux-nat.h.  
>         (linux_make_note_section): Iterate over lwps instead of threads.
>         (linux_do_thread_registers): Use lwp instead of merged pid.
>         * config/nm-linux.h: Move miscelaneous def'ns to linux-nat.h.
>         * Makefile.in (lin-lwp.o, linux-proc.o, linux-nat.o): 
>         Add dependency on linux_nat_h.
> 
> ?
> 

Yes.  Didn't see a post about it being committed.  Thanks.

-- Jeff J.