From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11999 invoked by alias); 14 Sep 2009 20:20:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 11977 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Sep 2009 20:20:26 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com (HELO smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com) (65.115.85.73) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 14 Sep 2009 20:20:22 +0000 Received: from mailhost3.vmware.com (mailhost3.vmware.com [10.16.27.45]) by smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FE8E34019; Mon, 14 Sep 2009 13:20:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.20.94.141] (msnyder-server.eng.vmware.com [10.20.94.141]) by mailhost3.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 664D3CD9EB; Mon, 14 Sep 2009 13:20:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4AAEA596.9040100@vmware.com> Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 20:20:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20080411) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Doug Evans CC: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" , Marc Khouzam , Greg Law , Pedro Alves , Hui Zhu Subject: Re: [patch] only update dcache after write succeeds References: <20090914191657.E32D6844C3@localhost> <4AAE98F1.3000501@vmware.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2009-09/txt/msg00450.txt.bz2 Doug Evans wrote: > On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 12:26 PM, Michael Snyder wrote: >> Doug Evans wrote: >>> Hi. >>> >>> Marc, Greg: Can you see if this patch fixes things for you? >> Hey Doug, > > Hey Michael, :-) > >> I tested this change, and it does indeed seem to fix the problem >> with target record -- but. ;-) >> >> Part of the reason that it works is that record_xfer_partial >> calls error() instead of returning -1. If I change it so that >> it returns -1, things get more complicated. >> >> The do-while loop that used to follow and now preceeds this code >> calls target-beneath, which in our case results in several different >> target methods being called, one of which eventually returns > 0. >> >> That just means that in the present case, calling error is correct. >> But I worry about some of the other cases where the target method >> returns -1, and whether badness might occur in some other cases. > > How does one reconcile "eventually returns > 0" with "badness"? > > IOW, if some target method does return > 0, then the write succeeded, right? > Are there different kinds of "success" in effect here? Well, maybe only in our case. ;-) If nobody else has any worries about it, I'm OK with it. ---- * In our case (process record), it's a bad thing for the target beneath to be called after the user has said "no".