Re: [remote protocol] support for disabling packet acknowledgement

[Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com>]

A Friday 11 July 2008 19:54:09, Paul Koning wrote:
> >>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com> writes:

>  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.

Right, I was assuming tcp connection A <-> D, not two separate
tcp connections.

-- 
Pedro Alves