From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14707 invoked by alias); 29 Dec 2008 19:31:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 14434 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Dec 2008 19:31:09 -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 19:30:25 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7193610A4E; Mon, 29 Dec 2008 19:30:23 +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 50A4510A4C; Mon, 29 Dec 2008 19:30:23 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LHNol-0007kA-1C; Mon, 29 Dec 2008 14:30:23 -0500 Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 19:31:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Sandra Loosemore Cc: Joel Brobecker , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: RFA: auto-retry TCP connections for "target remote" Message-ID: <20081229193023.GB29455@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Sandra Loosemore , Joel Brobecker , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <49553C3A.2070000@codesourcery.com> <20081228110831.GB4216@adacore.com> <20081229035505.GA10882@caradoc.them.org> <20081229043720.GG4216@adacore.com> <20081229134856.GA10761@caradoc.them.org> <20081229141229.GL4216@adacore.com> <4958E4FE.0@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4958E4FE.0@codesourcery.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/msg00452.txt.bz2 On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 09:55:58AM -0500, Sandra Loosemore wrote: > Joel Brobecker wrote: >>>> 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. >>> Seems reasonable to me: "set tcp"? >> >> Sounds good to me! > > OK, so the current plan is just to rename the commands rather than to > generalize the retry logic? Right. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery