From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32174 invoked by alias); 29 Dec 2008 03:55:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 32166 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Dec 2008 03:55:48 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 29 Dec 2008 03:55:09 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C46C310A4B; Mon, 29 Dec 2008 03:55:06 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (209.195.188.212.nauticom.net [209.195.188.212]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8ED8410995; Mon, 29 Dec 2008 03:55:06 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LH9Dd-0002py-OZ; Sun, 28 Dec 2008 22:55:05 -0500 Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 03:55:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Joel Brobecker Cc: Sandra Loosemore , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: RFA: auto-retry TCP connections for "target remote" Message-ID: <20081229035505.GA10882@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Joel Brobecker , Sandra Loosemore , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <49553C3A.2070000@codesourcery.com> <20081228110831.GB4216@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20081228110831.GB4216@adacore.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2008-05-11) 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: 2008-12/txt/msg00435.txt.bz2 On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 03:08:31PM +0400, Joel Brobecker wrote: > I wonder if it wouldn't be both simpler and more general to do everything > at the remote.c level.Something like replacing the call to serial_open () > by a loop that calls serial_open a few times until we either succeed or > exceed the number of retries. What do others think? Sandra's patch has both an on/off switch and a total retry time. I think that's a little more user-friendly than a retry count; "try for 30 seconds" instead "try 5 times". I'm not sure how we'd do that if it wasn't implemented in ser-tcp.c, though... -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery