From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26833 invoked by alias); 14 Sep 2009 20:41:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 26824 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Sep 2009 20:41:47 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SARE_MSGID_LONG40,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-out.google.com (HELO smtp-out.google.com) (216.239.33.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 14 Sep 2009 20:41:43 +0000 Received: from spaceape24.eur.corp.google.com (spaceape24.eur.corp.google.com [172.28.16.76]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id n8EKffLE017331 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 2009 21:41:41 +0100 Received: from ywh38 (ywh38.prod.google.com [10.192.8.38]) by spaceape24.eur.corp.google.com with ESMTP id n8EKfcnb018856 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 2009 13:41:39 -0700 Received: by ywh38 with SMTP id 38so5454797ywh.16 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 2009 13:41:38 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.150.159.8 with SMTP id h8mr10741551ybe.302.1252960897324; Mon, 14 Sep 2009 13:41:37 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4AAEA596.9040100@vmware.com> References: <20090914191657.E32D6844C3@localhost> <4AAE98F1.3000501@vmware.com> <4AAEA596.9040100@vmware.com> Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 20:41:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [patch] only update dcache after write succeeds From: Doug Evans To: Michael Snyder Cc: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" , Marc Khouzam , Greg Law , Pedro Alves , Hui Zhu Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-System-Of-Record: true 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/msg00457.txt.bz2 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. =A0;-) > > 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.