From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18866 invoked by alias); 27 Dec 2012 18:09:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 18853 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Dec 2012 18:09:06 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO,RCVD_IN_NIX_SPAM,SPF_SOFTFAIL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtaout20.012.net.il (HELO mtaout20.012.net.il) (80.179.55.166) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 27 Dec 2012 18:09:00 +0000 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout20.012.net.il by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0MFP00M00BONN500@a-mtaout20.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Thu, 27 Dec 2012 20:08:57 +0200 (IST) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0MFP00M22BQWHR50@a-mtaout20.012.net.il>; Thu, 27 Dec 2012 20:08:57 +0200 (IST) Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2012 18:09:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: [RFC] Refactor doc on stop notification. In-reply-to: <50D11C59.2060803@codesourcery.com> To: Yao Qi Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: <83obhfmkoy.fsf@gnu.org> References: <1355731419-21360-1-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> <83fw34r682.fsf@gnu.org> <50D11C59.2060803@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/msg00819.txt.bz2 > Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 09:46:01 +0800 > From: Yao Qi > CC: > > Here is a real rsp traffic on notification Stop. > > <- %Stop:T0505:98e7ffbf;04:4ce6ffbf;08:b1b6e54c;thread:p7526.7526;core:0; > .... > -> vStopped > <- T0505:68f37db7;04:40f37db7;08:63850408;thread:p7526.7528;core:0; > -> vStopped > <-T0505:68e3fdb6;04:40e3fdb6;08:63850408;thread:p7526.7529;core:0; > -> vStopped > <- OK Thanks, this explains quite a bit. > How about the new version? It's OK, after you take care of a few remaining problems: > +See @xref{Notification Packets}. Just "@xref", without the "See" part. @xref already generates a "See". > +Each notification is composed by three parts: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ "comprised of three parts" > +Otherwise, @value{GDBN} must be prepared to receive a I would delete the "Otherwise" part. I don't think it adds anything to the text. > +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. > +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. OK with those changes. Thanks.