Re: [PATCH 2/7] Introduce target_fileio_set_fs

[Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>]

On 04/17/2015 06:28 PM, Doug Evans wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 7:21 AM, Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 04/17/2015 02:36 PM, Gary Benson wrote:
>>
>>> It was basically because the alternative was to add a parameter to
>>> target_filesystem_is_local and target_fileio_{open,readlink,unlink}
>>> (and all their target vector implementations) to pass around whatever
>>> inferior you were talking about.  You'd also have to make a lot more
>>> changes to the remote protocol: either vFile:{open,unlink,readlink}
>>> would need an extra argument (indicated with qSupported) or you'd need
>>> new "fs" versions of each packet.  Both Pedro and I thought that was
>>> ugly.
>>
>> Right, this way mirrors what's done at the posix/system call level too,
>> and if some other systems needs something different for selecting
>> a "filesystem namespace", there's a single method/packet to change.
> 
> Fair enough.
> All I would ask is that this get pushed down as far as possible in the
> call stack.
> 
> E.g., while I wouldn't suggest massive changes to the remote protocol
> (regardless of how desperately IWBN), IWBN that layers above that
> follow good programming practices (avoiding using global state
> wherever possible/reasonable).

Fair enough as well.  I'm fine with adding explicit arguments
on the layers above, leaving the packet as is.

Thanks,
Pedro Alves