From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30067 invoked by alias); 6 Sep 2011 17:32:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 30059 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Sep 2011 17:32:18 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 06 Sep 2011 17:32:02 +0000 Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p86HW2Cd016298 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 13:32:02 -0400 Received: from [10.3.113.22] (ovpn-113-22.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.22]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p86GQfTD004295; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 12:26:41 -0400 Message-ID: <4E6649C0.2030607@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2011 17:32:00 -0000 From: Josh Stone User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:6.0) Gecko/20110816 Thunderbird/6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Wielaard CC: Dave Brolley , systemtap@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Does This Probe Make Sense? References: <4E5D03D3.4010208@redhat.com> <4E5D11FC.8060009@redhat.com> <1315321500.3895.41.camel@springer.wildebeest.org> In-Reply-To: <1315321500.3895.41.camel@springer.wildebeest.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2011-q3/txt/msg00284.txt.bz2 On 09/06/2011 08:04 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote: >> So IMO, get rid of the .function(NUM).inline binding, and make sure that >> addresses in an inline still reach out to the containing .call. > > What do you mean by that last statement about "reach out"? Perhaps "reach up" would have been better, as in up the die hierarchy. I meant that given an address within an inline instance, we should still get a probe on the containing function. Josh