From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20503 invoked by alias); 18 Nov 2008 16:55:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 20416 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Nov 2008 16:55:55 -0000 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,KAM_MX,SARE_LWSHORTT,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS 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; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 16:55:19 +0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mAIGtHMF028528 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 11:55:17 -0500 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id mAIGtHC7028090 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 11:55:17 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (dhcp231-126.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.231.126]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mAIGtGiJ014052; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 11:55:16 -0500 Message-ID: <4922F374.2060609@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 16:55:00 -0000 From: William Cohen User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (X11/20080723) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Teoh CC: SystemTAP , Don Domingo , "Frank Ch. Eigler" Subject: Re: Start of Systemtap Tapset Reference manual References: <4919B665.2060606@redhat.com> <804dabb00811162156s7cc931deja89861e47571331f@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <804dabb00811162156s7cc931deja89861e47571331f@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.58 on 172.16.52.254 X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2008-q4/txt/msg00375.txt.bz2 Peter Teoh wrote: > not sure if my suggestion has any relevancy or unanticipated or not, but > I will just describe it. > > what i am proposing is: do the minimal work to create the > documentation, maximize the consistency with that of Linux Kernel, so > that UNIFICATION of systemtap with Linux Kernel source may one be possible. I haven't thought about the issue of pulling the documentation into the kernel at this time. I was just thinking about the short term describing all the probe points and functions in systemtap in a manner that will keep up to date with changes in the tapsets. Trying to make it so the documentation isn't totally separated from the code. However, with markers/tracepoints there will need to have this type of description in the kernel documentation. There are text files in Documentation directory: markers.txt and tracepoints.txt. When specific markers and tracepoints are put in the kernel those would certainly should end up in Documents/. > > How? > > a. When create the documentation, for example, the current > systemtap/doc always assumed that the entire subdirectory can be moved > to become Linux Kernel's Documentation's subdirectory, perhaps > "systemtap" as the name. > > b. So when a user go to Linux Kernel source and enter "make htmldocs", > or "make pdfdocs", a htmlized or pdf-ized document will be created under > DocBook. Ie, there will be ZERO scripting effort from systemtap > developer, and all existing infrastructure provided by Linux Kernel > source's "script" subdirectory can be reused. I was able to do a "make htmldocs" on some kernels to take a look at the html on Fedora 9 machine (needed to have a number of "xmlto*" packages installed). However, unsuccessful with the "make pdfdocs". I got the following error: ! TeX capacity exceeded, sorry [hash size=60000]. \FlowObjectSetup ...x \csname x@\Label \endcsname \@madelink \else \bgroup \... l.342013 {9\p@}} 0\endSeq{}\endNode{} for success, <\/ \Node% ! ==> Fatal error occurred, no output PDF file produced! Transcript written on kernel-api.log. make[1]: *** [Documentation/DocBook/kernel-api.pdf] Error 9 Looks like I might be running into the internal limits. Are there workaround for that? > On a wider scale, the above can be generalized further. But I would > like some feedback before venturing too far. -Will