From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3380 invoked by alias); 8 Dec 2006 02:52:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 3371 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Dec 2006 02:52:15 -0000 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_40 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mga02.intel.com (HELO mga02.intel.com) (134.134.136.20) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 08 Dec 2006 02:52:06 +0000 Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18]) by mga02.intel.com with ESMTP; 07 Dec 2006 18:52:04 -0800 Received: from fmsmsx334.amr.corp.intel.com ([132.233.42.1]) by orsmga001.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 07 Dec 2006 18:52:04 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.09,511,1157353200"; d="scan'208"; a="171974894:sNHT18722872" Received: from scsmsx412.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.3.90.31]) by fmsmsx334.amr.corp.intel.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 7 Dec 2006 18:52:03 -0800 Received: from scsmsx413.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.3.90.32]) by scsmsx412.amr.corp.intel.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 7 Dec 2006 18:52:03 -0800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: Order "begin" probes are run Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 14:56:00 -0000 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Order "begin" probes are run Thread-Index: AccT/KUH4/UK0dUFQgyxiw+qTPViqQABATxwAZxCq3A= From: "Stone, Joshua I" To: "Stone, Joshua I" , "Frank Ch. Eigler" , "Mike Mason" Cc: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Dec 2006 02:52:03.0507 (UTC) FILETIME=[D7102830:01C71A73] 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: 2006-q4/txt/msg00639.txt.bz2 On Wednesday, November 29, 2006 1:57 PM, Stone, Joshua I wrote: > On Wednesday, November 29, 2006 1:23 PM, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote: >> Mike Mason writes: >>> Seems reasonable to expect tapset "begin" probes to always run >>> before a script's "begin" probe. [...] >>=20 >> One might also imagine cases where it could work the other way. >>=20 >> We could solve this by parametrizing: adding a sequence parameter to >> "probe begin(N)" (and "end(M)"), and sorting them. Easy to >> implement.=20 >=20 > This is a nice idea -- if you make the default priority zero for those > who don't specify it, then things can "just work". Users can write an > unparameterized 'begin' as usual, and the tapset writer can initialize > in a 'begin(-1)' -- or 'begin(-2^63)' if paranoia kicks in... This is now implemented -- you can give a numeric parameter to begin/end probes, and they will execute in increasing order. The sequence number if left out is effectively zero. We should adopt a convention for tapset writers to use these fields. My suggestion: when it doesn't matter, just use begin/end without a parameter; to run early, use less than -1000; and to run late use greater than 1000. This way script writers still have +/- 1000 to play with locally. Josh