From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24419 invoked by alias); 11 Jul 2008 18:54:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 24401 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Jul 2008 18:54:40 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from aussmtpmrkpc120.us.dell.com (HELO aussmtpmrkpc120.us.dell.com) (143.166.82.159) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 18:54:13 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.30,346,1212382800"; d="scan'208";a="352727361" Received: from unknown (HELO M31.equallogic.com) ([12.110.134.31]) by aussmtpmrkpc120.us.dell.com with SMTP; 11 Jul 2008 13:54:12 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <18551.44113.66097.903273@djudge-us-nas.equallogic.com> Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 18:54:00 -0000 From: Paul Koning To: pedro@codesourcery.com Cc: gdb@sourceware.org, drow@false.org, sandra@codesourcery.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [remote protocol] support for disabling packet acknowledgement References: <48765B8A.6080805@codesourcery.com> <20080711152356.GA10073@caradoc.them.org> <18551.33290.507527.212150@djudge-us-nas.equallogic.com> <200807111859.02058.pedro@codesourcery.com> X-Mailer: VM 7.17 under 21.4 (patch 19) "Constant Variable" XEmacs Lucid 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 X-SW-Source: 2008-07/txt/msg00219.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves writes: Pedro> A Friday 11 July 2008 16:53:46, Paul Koning wrote: >> >>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel Jacobowitz writes: Daniel> On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 04:10:47PM +0100, Pedro Alves wrote: >> Agreed. Telnet to a terminal server that feeds a UART based >> target stub is common practice. Pedro> Ack, we're all in sync. >> TCP at both ends with datagrams in between is too weird to >> consider. Pedro> Not weird at all, and it is safe. It doesn't matter what you Pedro> have in the middle as long as both ends have tcp. You're probably thinking about end to end TCP over a datagram cloud. That works, of course, that's the Internet. I was talking about TCP from A to B, raw UART B to C, TCP from C to D. TCP wouldn't be helping you detect or correct data loss on the B to C path, and that means you'd need application layer acks (as in the current remote GDB protocol) for that case. But that's a topology that makes no sense to me and I wouldn't expect ever to see. paul