From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28206 invoked by alias); 14 Sep 2009 20:43:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 28198 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Sep 2009 20:43:36 -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 20:43:32 +0000 Received: from jupiter.vmware.com (mailhost5.vmware.com [10.16.68.131]) by smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FD377008; Mon, 14 Sep 2009 13:43:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.20.94.141] (msnyder-server.eng.vmware.com [10.20.94.141]) by jupiter.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 902F2DC056; Mon, 14 Sep 2009 13:43:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4AAEAB04.9030302@vmware.com> Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 20:43:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20080411) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pedro Alves CC: Doug Evans , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" , Marc Khouzam , Greg Law , Hui Zhu Subject: Re: [patch] only update dcache after write succeeds References: <20090914191657.E32D6844C3@localhost> <4AAEA596.9040100@vmware.com> <200909142140.09644.pedro@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <200909142140.09644.pedro@codesourcery.com> 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/msg00459.txt.bz2 Pedro Alves wrote: > On Monday 14 September 2009 21:20:38, Michael Snyder wrote: > >>> 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". > > The user is saying "no" to the whole high level operation, not to > a single partial transfer. In that case, you shouldn't even > attempt to partial xfer in the target beneath, I would say. A thrown > error for those cases looks like the way to go. Perhaps even better > would be to be able to foretell if the transfer is going to be > problematic and warn/query upfront, but it's hard in some cases. Agree, "error()" is the way to go here.