Re: RFA: Collect unexplained stopped threads in lin-lwp

[Michael Snyder <msnyder at redhat dot com>]

Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> [Michael, you more or less approved this patch in December, but it's seen a
> few changes - linux_record_stopped_pid isn't a dummy any more.]
>
> This patch just accepts processes we aren't currently debugging which report
> a SIGSTOP, and throws them onto a list.  Not very useful by itself, but my
> next patch will both cause this to happen (by enabling fork events) and
> empty the list when it receives fork events.  I'm only submitting it
> separately, because it was the last meaningful piece I could break out.
>
> Is this OK?

I realize these are not the same as LWPs, but is there any reason
you can't throw them in the existing LWP list, and then pull them
out discriminately?  (if that's a word...)

Just a suggestion.  If there is a reason, then yes, approved.