From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17172 invoked by alias); 11 Jul 2008 19:10:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 17154 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Jul 2008 19:10:38 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 19:10:21 +0000 Received: (qmail 22517 invoked from network); 11 Jul 2008 19:10:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO orlando.local) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 11 Jul 2008 19:10:19 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: Paul Koning Subject: Re: [remote protocol] support for disabling packet acknowledgement Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 19:10:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 Cc: gdb@sourceware.org, drow@false.org, sandra@codesourcery.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <48765B8A.6080805@codesourcery.com> <200807111859.02058.pedro@codesourcery.com> <18551.44113.66097.903273@djudge-us-nas.equallogic.com> In-Reply-To: <18551.44113.66097.903273@djudge-us-nas.equallogic.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200807112010.19552.pedro@codesourcery.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes 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/msg00223.txt.bz2 A Friday 11 July 2008 19:54:09, Paul Koning wrote: > >>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves 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