From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18067 invoked by alias); 29 Nov 2006 21:58:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 18060 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Nov 2006 21:58:20 -0000 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_20 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mga09.intel.com (HELO mga09.intel.com) (134.134.136.24) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 29 Nov 2006 21:58:13 +0000 Received: from azsmga001.ch.intel.com ([10.2.17.19]) by mga09.intel.com with ESMTP; 29 Nov 2006 13:57:23 -0800 Received: from scsmsx331.sc.intel.com (HELO scsmsx331.amr.corp.intel.com) ([10.3.90.4]) by azsmga001.ch.intel.com with ESMTP; 29 Nov 2006 13:57:23 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.09,476,1157353200"; d="scan'208"; a="151792272:sNHT18811142" Received: from scsmsx413.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.3.90.32]) by scsmsx331.amr.corp.intel.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 29 Nov 2006 13:57:22 -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: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 00:47:00 -0000 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Order "begin" probes are run Thread-Index: AccT/KUH4/UK0dUFQgyxiw+qTPViqQABATxw From: "Stone, Joshua I" To: "Frank Ch. Eigler" , "Mike Mason" Cc: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Nov 2006 21:57:22.0683 (UTC) FILETIME=[592A84B0:01C71401] 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/msg00554.txt.bz2 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. 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... Josh