From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5433 invoked by alias); 29 Dec 2008 14:57:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 5420 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Dec 2008 14:57:38 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 29 Dec 2008 14:56:55 +0000 Received: (qmail 988 invoked from network); 29 Dec 2008 14:56:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bullfrog.localdomain) (sandra@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 29 Dec 2008 14:56:54 -0000 Message-ID: <4958E4FE.0@codesourcery.com> Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 14:57:00 -0000 From: Sandra Loosemore User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.4 (X11/20070604) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joel Brobecker CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: RFA: auto-retry TCP connections for "target remote" 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> In-Reply-To: <20081229141229.GL4216@adacore.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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/msg00447.txt.bz2 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? -Sandra