From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15248 invoked by alias); 14 Jun 2007 09:57:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 15239 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Jun 2007 09:57:21 -0000 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DK_POLICY_SIGNSOME,FORGED_RCVD_HELO X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from wildebeest.demon.nl (HELO gnu.wildebeest.org) (83.160.170.119) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 14 Jun 2007 09:57:19 +0000 Received: from dijkstra.wildebeest.org ([192.168.1.29]) by gnu.wildebeest.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hym74-0002ur-7q; Thu, 14 Jun 2007 11:59:34 +0200 Subject: Re: frysk.proc.{ptrace,corefile} -> frysk.proc.{live,dead} From: Mark Wielaard To: Andrew Cagney Cc: frysk In-Reply-To: <466FED51.3030804@redhat.com> References: <466FED51.3030804@redhat.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-k3SFU/KsevBFG9H08eX3" Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 10:11:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1181815036.4474.23.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.8.3 (2.8.3-2.fc6) X-Spam-Score: -4.4 (----) X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on sourceware.org X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact frysk-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: frysk-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-q2/txt/msg00269.txt.bz2 --=-k3SFU/KsevBFG9H08eX3 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-length: 1320 On Wed, 2007-06-13 at 09:12 -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > This picks up an earlier refactoring, where the specific instances of a=20 > Host et.al. were moved to sub-packages. As I noted back then, the=20 > sub-package names, in hindsite, weren't the best choice - reflecting=20 > implementation (using ptrace) rather than properties (live or dead). >=20 > The intent is to rename frysk.proc.{ptrace,corefile} ->=20 > frysk.proc.{live,dead} Could you explain a bit more what kind of public interface (differences) you see between these two packages? How would it compare with the public frysk.proc interface for Tasks? My feeling is that it isn't a good idea to just rename the implementation packages ptrace, corefile to these properties you find more appealing. You should layer the properties on top of the implementation techniques. There might be more implementations later like utrace and/or some userspace /proc implementation layered on top of utrace that Chris is working on. But we will still use ptrace for systems that don't support utrace (yet). And with some magic we can probably give the core file implementation some of the live properties by emulating memory, register access and instruction stepping. So multiple implementations might map to different instances of these properties. Cheers, Mark --=-k3SFU/KsevBFG9H08eX3 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part Content-length: 189 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBGcRD3xVhZCJWr9QwRAtFRAKCYgCzNQpEcYahMQdSF74mkJ+Vd9wCghXMG 8/IWrkkv8bKxyfrMUb+lMr4= =0OnO -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-k3SFU/KsevBFG9H08eX3--