From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 37233 invoked by alias); 19 Jul 2018 15:55:57 -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 37219 invoked by uid 89); 19 Jul 2018 15:55:56 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=buettner, H*f:sk:3b4f3ba, Buettner X-HELO: smtp.polymtl.ca Received: from smtp.polymtl.ca (HELO smtp.polymtl.ca) (132.207.4.11) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 19 Jul 2018 15:55:55 +0000 Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.polymtl.ca (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id w6JFtn8H026792 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Thu, 19 Jul 2018 11:55:54 -0400 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 3EEE81EF29; Thu, 19 Jul 2018 11:55:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from simark.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E36E1E08D; Thu, 19 Jul 2018 11:55:48 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 15:55:00 -0000 From: Simon Marchi To: Kevin Buettner Cc: Simon Marchi , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] Non-contiguous address range support In-Reply-To: <20180716190036.3df0b4f2@pinnacle.lan> References: <20180625233239.49dc52ea@pinnacle.lan> <3b4f3bab-8f30-d878-09f0-0d9c60ba4583@ericsson.com> <20180716190036.3df0b4f2@pinnacle.lan> Message-ID: <009e5f0b06acafca3b778f0900f5df56@polymtl.ca> X-Sender: simon.marchi@polymtl.ca User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.3.6 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2018-07/txt/msg00585.txt.bz2 On 2018-07-16 22:00, Kevin Buettner wrote: > Hi Simon, > > I haven't tried the simpler caching approach that you outline above. > It seems like it should work and it would definitely make checking for > whether or not something is in the cache simpler. > > I'll give it a try and run the test suite to see if there's a problem > with > doing it that way. > > Thanks, > > Kevin Just note that I don't have the complete picture yet. If the block range information is necessary for some other reason, then it would make sense to use it as well for that cache. I didn't want to send you on a long side-quest for nothing! Simon