From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23789 invoked by alias); 16 Nov 2007 20:27:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 23743 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Nov 2007 20:27:57 -0000 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DK_POLICY_SIGNSOME,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,TW_EB 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; Fri, 16 Nov 2007 20:27:52 +0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.1) with ESMTP id lAGKRo6Z003209; Fri, 16 Nov 2007 15:27:50 -0500 Received: from pobox-3.corp.redhat.com (pobox-3.corp.redhat.com [10.11.255.67]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id lAGKRoFN008568; Fri, 16 Nov 2007 15:27:50 -0500 Received: from touchme.toronto.redhat.com (IDENT:postfix@touchme.yyz.redhat.com [10.15.16.9]) by pobox-3.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id lAGKRIFK016276; Fri, 16 Nov 2007 15:27:50 -0500 Received: from ton.toronto.redhat.com (ton.yyz.redhat.com [10.15.16.15]) by touchme.toronto.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B175E8001FF; Fri, 16 Nov 2007 15:27:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from ton.toronto.redhat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by ton.toronto.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id lAGKQjD9008531; Fri, 16 Nov 2007 15:26:45 -0500 Received: (from fche@localhost) by ton.toronto.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id lAGKQjrk008529; Fri, 16 Nov 2007 15:26:45 -0500 Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 20:27:00 -0000 From: "Frank Ch. Eigler" To: Mathieu Desnoyers Cc: ltt-dev@shafik.org, Systemtap List Subject: Re: patches to actually use markers? Message-ID: <20071116202645.GB25326@redhat.com> References: <472633E3.1050507@redhat.com> <20071029220454.GB4233@Krystal> <4728AD5F.1010604@redhat.com> <473DEBB7.40607@redhat.com> <20071116192415.GA25794@Krystal> <20071116201015.GA29545@Krystal> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20071116201015.GA29545@Krystal> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i 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: 2007-q4/txt/msg00356.txt.bz2 Hi - On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 03:10:15PM -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > [...] > > How would this syscall specific function get ebx or the string, > > without ebx (or regs) being passed as marker arguments? > That's the idea : in the syscall specific function (not in > syscall_trace()), we add another marker that takes the syscall > specific arguments as parameter. I think we use the same approach > there. I see. Yes, per-systemcall markers would be welcome by our group, and ones not dependent on TIF_TRACE or whatnot even more so. But were trying not to get too optimistic. > What I was saying is that we can't extract the string from > syscall_trace() because we have no idea it is a string. If "we" is a marker callback function that is given the system call number, it can be taught. This is the sort of thing we do currently in systemtap script code based upon kprobes. - FChE