From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2187 invoked by alias); 21 Nov 2005 20:19:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 2180 invoked by uid 22791); 21 Nov 2005 20:19:19 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 21 Nov 2005 20:19:18 +0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id jALKJFvE014615; Mon, 21 Nov 2005 15:19:15 -0500 Received: from potter.sfbay.redhat.com (potter.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.15]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id jALKJFV09133; Mon, 21 Nov 2005 15:19:15 -0500 Received: from [172.16.24.50] (bluegiant.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.24.50]) by potter.sfbay.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id jALKJDSY006660; Mon, 21 Nov 2005 15:19:14 -0500 Message-ID: <43822BC0.6010101@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 20:19:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird (X11/20050322) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jim Blandy CC: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Packing "R" actions in a QTDP packet References: <8f2776cb0511182148u78181643o940ebd454d0e3901@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <8f2776cb0511182148u78181643o940ebd454d0e3901@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2005-11/txt/msg00455.txt.bz2 Jim Blandy wrote: > The code in stringify_collection_list will concatenate as many 'M' and > 'X' actions as it can in a packet, but it leaves 'R' actions in a > packet by themselves. Are you sure? That's not my recollection, though admittedly it's been 5 years or so... In my mental picture, the R bitmask goes somewhere in the QTDP message, just *before* the memranges. There is of course only one 'R' per tracepoint, because it's a bitmask... > Is there any technical reason for this? Should > I simply document the protocol as allowing actions to be packed > together as much as you like as long as the overall packet size > doesn't get too big, or should I say that 'R' actions require a packet > unto themselves?