This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH 2/7] Introduce target_fileio_set_fs
- From: Gary Benson <gbenson at redhat dot com>
- To: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Doug Evans <dje at google dot com>, gdb-patches <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 12:11:11 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] Introduce target_fileio_set_fs
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1429186791-6867-1-git-send-email-gbenson at redhat dot com> <1429186791-6867-3-git-send-email-gbenson at redhat dot com> <CADPb22RVM=aT0+0e2679pW5az1VnwURTcQVc3T=eRo5V4tWoog at mail dot gmail dot com> <20150417133628 dot GA26681 at blade dot nx> <553116EB dot 6050508 at redhat dot com> <CADPb22RMFsZdEMz=yuECK7f5akhDwnJ_1d_thTD6+r_cUjad0Q at mail dot gmail dot com> <553146E6 dot 8050003 at redhat dot com>
Pedro Alves wrote:
> 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.
Ok, I'll make that change.
Cheers,
Gary
--
http://gbenson.net/