From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 46816 invoked by alias); 17 Apr 2015 16:07:36 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 46807 invoked by uid 89); 17 Apr 2015 16:07:36 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 17 Apr 2015 16:07:35 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t3HG7YgZ015416 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Fri, 17 Apr 2015 12:07:34 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t3HG7WL1011094; Fri, 17 Apr 2015 12:07:33 -0400 Message-ID: <55312FC4.4090307@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 16:07:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Gary Benson CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/7] Implement multiple-filesystem support for remote targets References: <1429186791-6867-1-git-send-email-gbenson@redhat.com> <1429186791-6867-7-git-send-email-gbenson@redhat.com> <5531217B.5090004@redhat.com> <20150417155958.GA14618@blade.nx> In-Reply-To: <20150417155958.GA14618@blade.nx> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2015-04/txt/msg00690.txt.bz2 On 04/17/2015 04:59 PM, Gary Benson wrote: > Pedro Alves wrote: >> On 04/16/2015 01:19 PM, Gary Benson wrote: >>> --- a/gdb/remote.c >>> +++ b/gdb/remote.c >>> @@ -367,6 +367,12 @@ struct remote_state >>> >>> /* The branch trace configuration. */ >>> struct btrace_config btrace_config; >>> + >>> + /* The argument to the last "vFile:setfs:" packet we sent, used >>> + to avoid sending repeated unnecessary "vFile:setfs:" packets. >>> + Initialized to -1 to indicate that no "vFile:setfs:" packet >>> + has yet been sent. */ >>> + int fs_pid; >>> }; >>> >> >>> +/* Process ID of inferior whose filesystem remote_hostio functions >>> + that take FILENAME arguments will use. Zero means to use the >>> + remote stub's filesystem. */ >>> + >>> +static int remote_fs_pid = 0; >> >> What's the rationale for not putting this one in "struct >> remote_state" ? > > I don't have one :) Would you prefer it there? It's not really about personal preference: if on a multi-remote-connections world the flag would be remote connection specific, it should be in remote_state. It seemed that way to me, but if it isn't, then it should be left a global. Thanks, Pedro Alves