From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14467 invoked by alias); 29 Apr 2009 12:27:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 14460 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Apr 2009 12:27:09 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx2.redhat.com (HELO mx2.redhat.com) (66.187.237.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 29 Apr 2009 12:27:03 +0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (int-mx2.corp.redhat.com [172.16.27.26]) by mx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n3TCQxwe008171; Wed, 29 Apr 2009 08:26:59 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n3TCQwo5015716; Wed, 29 Apr 2009 08:26:59 -0400 Received: from [10.32.10.142] (vpn-10-142.str.redhat.com [10.32.10.142]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n3TCQvwu023457; Wed, 29 Apr 2009 08:26:57 -0400 Subject: Re: Systemtap snap:b6371390 test on kernel 2.6.30-rc3-git2 From: Mark Wielaard To: ananth@in.ibm.com Cc: systemtap@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <20090429122105.GB3411@in.ibm.com> References: <1240843370.4387.45.camel@fedora.wildebeest.org> <20090428065617.GD1531@in.ibm.com> <1240995422.2389.2.camel@fedora.wildebeest.org> <20090429092634.GA3411@in.ibm.com> <1241006903.4267.11.camel@fedora.wildebeest.org> <20090429122105.GB3411@in.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 12:27:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1241008016.4267.13.camel@fedora.wildebeest.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact systemtap-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: systemtap-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-q2/txt/msg00475.txt.bz2 Hi Ananth, On Wed, 2009-04-29 at 17:51 +0530, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote: > On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 02:08:23PM +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote: > > The rest does seem to PASS as before, but I am somewhat concerned > that > > the tests were originally designed to test function (.call/return) > > probes, which are different from syscall (.return) probes. So are we > > really still testing the correct things? > > Maybe the choice of functions weren't correct in the first place? Why > don't we change this to say, vfs_read instead of sys_read? That sounds like a good plan to me. Cheers, Mark