[rfc] Correct semantics of target_read_partial, add target_read_whole

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 12:18:02PM +0400, Vladimir Prus wrote:
> Is there any reason why 'target_read_whole' calls 'target_read', as opposed
> to calling 'target_read_partial' directly? I mean, if target_read_whole can
> do several reads itself, there's no point to use 'target_read'.

Thank you!  Indeed we shouldn't use target_read; it will issue
gratuitous extra packets (by breaking the transfer in the wrong place).

Obviously I need to proofread all these changes again when I get home.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery