From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19868 invoked by alias); 6 Jan 2006 09:45:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 19853 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Jan 2006 09:45:49 -0000 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_20,SPF_FAIL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from gateway.sf.frob.com (HELO gateway.sf.frob.com) (64.81.54.130) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 06 Jan 2006 09:45:48 +0000 Received: from magilla.sf.frob.com (magilla.sf.frob.com [198.49.250.228]) by gateway.sf.frob.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E31F5357B; Fri, 6 Jan 2006 01:45:45 -0800 (PST) Received: by magilla.sf.frob.com (Postfix, from userid 5281) id B3B10180B7C; Fri, 6 Jan 2006 01:45:45 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Roland McGrath To: Martin Hunt Cc: "systemtap@sources.redhat.com" Subject: Re: tapset feedback In-Reply-To: Martin Hunt's message of Thursday, 5 January 2006 08:27:08 -0800 <1136478429.3853.14.camel@monkey2> X-Zippy-Says: If I felt any more SOPHISTICATED I would DIE of EMBARRASSMENT! Message-Id: <20060106094545.B3B10180B7C@magilla.sf.frob.com> Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2006 09:45:00 -0000 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact systemtap-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: systemtap-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-q1/txt/msg00038.txt.bz2 > So the idea here is that we define for each probe what to do if the > probe does not match any current function. Isn't this kind of similar to > my (perhaps poorly named) kernel.func probe point? Using kernel.func vs > kernel.function means "do nothing if this probe point fails to match". My suggestion percolates the "failed to match" notion up from the tapset implementation to the user script so that the user can decide about "do nothing" or "give me an error" or "warn me", in a general way for any such case from any tapset.