From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8812 invoked by alias); 28 Dec 2012 11:23:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 8802 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Dec 2012 11:23:48 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_SOFTFAIL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtaout21.012.net.il (HELO mtaout21.012.net.il) (80.179.55.169) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 28 Dec 2012 11:23:38 +0000 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout21.012.net.il by a-mtaout21.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0MFQ00J00NDRSM00@a-mtaout21.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Fri, 28 Dec 2012 13:23:37 +0200 (IST) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout21.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0MFQ00J43NNCSZ00@a-mtaout21.012.net.il>; Fri, 28 Dec 2012 13:23:37 +0200 (IST) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2012 11:23:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: [RFC] Refactor doc on stop notification. In-reply-to: <50DD0954.8070105@codesourcery.com> To: Yao Qi Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: <83ehiamncw.fsf@gnu.org> References: <1355731419-21360-1-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> <83fw34r682.fsf@gnu.org> <50D11C59.2060803@codesourcery.com> <83obhfmkoy.fsf@gnu.org> <50DD0954.8070105@codesourcery.com> 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: 2012-12/txt/msg00835.txt.bz2 > Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2012 10:52:04 +0800 > From: Yao Qi > CC: > > >> >+If the stub receives a @var{ack} packet and there are no > >> >+additional stop events to report, the stub shall return an @samp{OK} > >> >+response. At this point, @value{GDBN} has finished processing a > >> >+notification and the stub has completed sending any queued events. > >> >+@value{GDBN} ignores additional notifications received before this > >> >+point. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > "Before" or "after"? If "before" is correct, then I don't think I > > understand what this paragraph wants to tell. > > > > It is "before". At point [1], GDB has finished processing %Stop. GDB > will ignore any %Stop notifications (in [2]), *before* point [1]. > > <- %Stop:T0505:XXXX; > .... > -> vStopped > <- T0505:68f37db7;04:40f37db7;08:63850408;thread:p7526.7528;core:0; > -> vStopped > <- %Stop:T0505:XXXX; [2] > <- T0505:68e3fdb6;04:40e3fdb6;08:63850408;thread:p7526.7529;core:0; > -> vStopped > <- OK > [1] > > This paragraph is to tell that point [1] is the end of a processing to a > notification. After this point, GDB is ready again to process > notification, and before this point, GDB ignore notifications. But the whole process, between the first "%Stop:T0505:XXXX;" and "OK" is also called "notifications". That's where the confusion comes from. If you want to tell that any _new_ notifications cannot be _started_ until the final "OK" is received, then please say that in these very words. > >> >+The process of asynchronous notification can be illustrated by the > >> >+following example: > >> >+@smallexample > >> >+<- @code{%name:event} > >> >+@code{...} > >> >+-> @code{ack} > >> >+<- @code{event} > >> >+-> @code{ack} > >> >+<- @code{event} > >> >+-> @code{ack} > >> >+<- @code{OK} > >> >+@end smallexample > > I would suggest to consider putting here a real example, like the one > > you used to explain the issue to me. > > My intention here is to add a template or a pattern for a given new > notification, comprised of name, event and ack, to describe how rsp > traffic looks like for notification in general. IMO, it is more > informative than a specific notification. How about _adding_ an example, without removing the template?