From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 68D76385840F for ; Mon, 13 Dec 2021 11:41:06 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 68D76385840F Received: from mail-wm1-f69.google.com (mail-wm1-f69.google.com [209.85.128.69]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-308-jJYG9NuIOQeRHVaMi1SZdQ-1; Mon, 13 Dec 2021 06:41:05 -0500 X-MC-Unique: jJYG9NuIOQeRHVaMi1SZdQ-1 Received: by mail-wm1-f69.google.com with SMTP id j71-20020a1c234a000000b00342f418ae7cso11472298wmj.1 for ; Mon, 13 Dec 2021 03:41:04 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=yMrr4LpcV12IrOBDvyfGMQpszNcKNyhcN3kvYMQMyog=; b=feGaRfVBHTGGkw+y9AyMBiQv5/rX59nnl/9Jqv7+2SmYhyMzdEcsZLjyVxrJrGwLDd bgJEONedlcU96FBxmu+d9MrAUvODRkF4UltIyNgi4txZf+jqhuTZHssaN0dOpISxqmAf 6xAXC2y3ki3FVRhgpJ75jnG5vqUq9I97UD8pqwMXPqDr9HwoF/L6MoWMM9kFgBy5EsNT PlI3VDKldStyowzi1BA42lsPuky7/xhQ4V+LOPQc/0UNgkl51NLfCzgI145RoOorPWJ/ ZgPzs1YqoV7t5eu/QLdxw2ytLKFU4tGDuQvNI9vPGim+nXpFTzNtWnf8vFHiWLCciNI9 QcrA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530cuaRM2b8cw11HGNai4a0rKuhBN47eL8hUVVXjQNrpLdIntv+e jlBHqd91xzY3aXvQimnfRg/IdEAs6jhFL2iyZ4bY+7qiNw8qlcTm0TlZVro55CfmVAFHbCGaupM OYXRVzc0rgPDEm699E8trm6FWWaGln8sqeOGPUtTQ3m7xAblbiTrMJhyB5X7YB/9TwExJDh9y5A == X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:190c:: with SMTP id j12mr36833390wmq.117.1639395663680; Mon, 13 Dec 2021 03:41:03 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy4A30ZFxRZZ6sa+vUZvaEphQO8Tqa59v9R2rWTl0+Fh/4mhkDZdKo4zyUyeG59v55WCha1PQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:190c:: with SMTP id j12mr36833350wmq.117.1639395663374; Mon, 13 Dec 2021 03:41:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (host86-134-238-138.range86-134.btcentralplus.com. [86.134.238.138]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id g19sm7258809wmg.12.2021.12.13.03.41.02 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 13 Dec 2021 03:41:03 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2021 11:41:02 +0000 From: Andrew Burgess To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: PING: [PATCHv3 0/2] Improve 'maint set target-async off' for remote targets Message-ID: <20211213114102.GF175541@redhat.com> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: X-Operating-System: Linux/5.8.18-100.fc31.x86_64 (x86_64) X-Uptime: 11:40:48 up 21:58, 1 user, X-Editor: GNU Emacs [ http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs ] X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, RCVD_IN_BARRACUDACENTRAL, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_NONE, TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2021 11:41:08 -0000 Ping! Thanks, Andrew * Andrew Burgess [2021-12-01 10:40:21 +0000]: > I pushed patches #1 to #5 from the original series, but it turned out > that the assert added in patch #5 would trigger in some tests. I > checked my cached results and I definitiely wasn't seeing that assert > during my testing, so my original assumption was that patch #6 fixed > the cause of the assert. > > However, upon retesting I found that this was not the case. After > rebuilding my development branch, the assert was present. But it > hadn't triggered during my testing. > > I honestly have no idea what I originally tested - it clearly showed > the expected improvement for native-extended-remote, so it contained > some version of my work, but obviously not patch #5. > > Which is why there's been a delay getting a new version of this patch > on the list, I've retested the remaining patches, then double checked. > > The old patch #5 is now patch #2 in this series, and the old patch #6 > is now patch #1. Patch #1 contains a fix that allows the assert in > patch #2, that previously caused problems, to now be just fine. > > Changes since v2: > > - Previous patches #1 to #4 are now committed, > > - Previous patch #5 is now patch #2, > > - Previous patch #6 is now patch #1, > > - Change in remote_target::push_stop_reply, the async event token is > now only marked if the target _is_ in async mode, rather than if > the target _can_ be in async mode. When async mode is later > enabled we were already marking the event token, so this should > not be a change in most cases. During remote_target::start_remote > however, we push events, then process them without ever enabling > async mode, this use case was what was previously triggering the > assert in patch #2. > > - Code is otherwise unchanged. > > Changes since v1: > > - The old patch #2 is removed, as Simon pointed out, this was just wrong. > > - The old patch #3, which was approved, is now patch #5, and is unchanged. > > - The old patch #4, is now patch #6, and still needs a review. > > - The old patch #1 has been split up into #1, #2, #3, and #4. Given > significant changes since V1 these should probably be reviewed > afresh. > > --- > > Andrew Burgess (2): > gdb/remote: some fixes for 'maint set target-async off' > gdb: add assert in remote_target::wait relating to async being off > > gdb/remote.c | 192 +++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------------- > 1 file changed, 87 insertions(+), 105 deletions(-) > > -- > 2.25.4 >