From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19964 invoked by alias); 29 Dec 2008 04:38:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 19955 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Dec 2008 04:38:05 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 29 Dec 2008 04:37:30 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEE352A9674; Sun, 28 Dec 2008 23:37:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id Qfqf0S7gOsj7; Sun, 28 Dec 2008 23:37:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1071D2A9635; Sun, 28 Dec 2008 23:37:28 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id BB180E7ACD; Mon, 29 Dec 2008 08:37:20 +0400 (RET) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 04:38:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Sandra Loosemore , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: RFA: auto-retry TCP connections for "target remote" Message-ID: <20081229043720.GG4216@adacore.com> References: <49553C3A.2070000@codesourcery.com> <20081228110831.GB4216@adacore.com> <20081229035505.GA10882@caradoc.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20081229035505.GA10882@caradoc.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i 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/msg00436.txt.bz2 > 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... Aha, I see. Being able to control the maximum wait is nice too. In that case, I wonder if we should change the name of the settings to show that they apply to the TCP transport layer only. I think the question to ask ourselves is whether we're planning on reusing the same settings for other transport layers - I think there's value in having separate settings for separate layers as each medium has different qualities, and different values might make better sense. I glanced at the ser-tcp changes. I'm a little uncomfortable reviewing them, particularly because of Windows. Would you be in a better position to review them? Otherwise, I'll do some homework and take a look. -- Joel