From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4949 invoked by alias); 18 Jul 2006 20:42:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 4941 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Jul 2006 20:42:07 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Tue, 18 Jul 2006 20:42:05 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1G2wOJ-0007Ed-9v; Tue, 18 Jul 2006 16:42:03 -0400 Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 20:42:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Vladimir Prus Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] remove download_write_size variable Message-ID: <20060718204203.GA27666@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Vladimir Prus , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <200607181648.45180.vladimir@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200607181648.45180.vladimir@codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060403 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-07/txt/msg00244.txt.bz2 On Tue, Jul 18, 2006 at 04:48:44PM +0400, Vladimir Prus wrote: > > This patch removes the 'download_write_size'. At the moment, is has pretty low > value, it's not clear why we need a separate option for just one command, and > the new qSupported packet allows to negotiate packet size with the stub. > > So, I don't see any reason why this variable is needed, and given that flash > patches will seriously change symfile.c anyway, I suggest that we > "garbage-collect" this variable. > > Comments? > > - Volodya > > 2006-07-18 Vladimir Prus > > * symfile.c (download_write_size): Remove. > (show_download_write_size): Remove. > (load_section_callback): Don't use download_write_size. > (_initialize_symfile): Don't register download_write_size. I can find references to download-write-size on the Internet, e.g. in FAQs suggesting how to get better write performance. They all seem to push it as high as memory-write-packet-size, though, which suggests we do not need both limits. I think it's reasonable to remove it. However, you'll have to also remove it from the manual (it's a documented command). And I believe it should be added to NEWS as a removed feature. I'm going to let this patch sit a little while, in case anyone else can think of a reason to keep "set download-write-size". -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery