This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH 04/10] Don't stress 'remote' in "Data Caching" in doc
- From: Doug Evans <dje at google dot com>
- To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- Cc: Yao Qi <yao at codesourcery dot com>, gdb-patches <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 12:15:10 -0800
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/10] Don't stress 'remote' in "Data Caching" in doc
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1383458049-20893-1-git-send-email-yao at codesourcery dot com> <1383458049-20893-5-git-send-email-yao at codesourcery dot com> <83k3gpa0hf dot fsf at gnu dot org>
On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 8:55 AM, Eli Zaretskii <email@example.com> wrote:
>> From: Yao Qi <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2013 13:54:04 +0800
>> When I try to describe the cache and its related commands (in a
>> cache-per-address-space world), I find hard to add, because
>> existing doc is focused on remote debugging, while data cache is used
>> regardless of the target. More precisely, GDB caches target data,
>> instead of remote data.
> Thanks. But may I ask in the future not to split the patches to
> documentation that are related to the same series? When you split
> them, it makes the review harder, as I see the documentation changes
> piecemeal, rather than together.
That may be hard to apply in general.
For code we ask people to split such things out.
I can well imagine people applying the same logic to documentation.
I don't know that it necessarily applies here, but it could.