Re: status of NTPL patches

["J. Johnston" <jjohnstn at redhat dot com>]

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.