From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29335 invoked by alias); 14 Sep 2009 20:45:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 29306 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Sep 2009 20:45:08 -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-1.vmware.com (HELO smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com) (65.115.85.69) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 14 Sep 2009 20:45:03 +0000 Received: from mailhost2.vmware.com (mailhost2.vmware.com [10.16.67.167]) by smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 550B7130FB; Mon, 14 Sep 2009 13:45:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.20.94.141] (msnyder-server.eng.vmware.com [10.20.94.141]) by mailhost2.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 372C98E6F1; Mon, 14 Sep 2009 13:45:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4AAEAB5F.6010608@vmware.com> Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 20:45:00 -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> <4AAEA596.9040100@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/msg00460.txt.bz2 Doug Evans wrote: > On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 1:20 PM, 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". > > Righto. > But that seems like a separate issue (albeit one that collides with > dcache here). > We need a way for a target to say "I'm not handling this, and neither > can you." :-) > AIUI, right now it's done by punting with error (which doesn't seem > all that bad for the particular case at hand). > The alternative is to extend the error return values to mean different > things, but I'm guessing we're not in a rush to do that. > > If you like, I don't mind a workaround where we invalidate lines just > written to instead of updating them. I'm good with what you've got. ;-)