From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23594 invoked by alias); 5 Jan 2006 17:06:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 23587 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Jan 2006 17:06:52 -0000 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,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; Thu, 05 Jan 2006 17:06:51 +0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k05H6nUI022582 for ; Thu, 5 Jan 2006 12:06:49 -0500 Received: from pobox.toronto.redhat.com (pobox.toronto.redhat.com [172.16.14.4]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id k05H6n119414 for ; Thu, 5 Jan 2006 12:06:49 -0500 Received: from touchme.toronto.redhat.com (IDENT:postfix@touchme.toronto.redhat.com [172.16.14.9]) by pobox.toronto.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k05H6nS1024813 for ; Thu, 5 Jan 2006 12:06:49 -0500 Received: from tooth.toronto.redhat.com (tooth.toronto.redhat.com [172.16.14.29]) by touchme.toronto.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 056B6800086 for ; Thu, 5 Jan 2006 12:06:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from tooth.toronto.redhat.com (IDENT:eTSRsLSCslhwvow1nxit643MdFFMlypt@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tooth.toronto.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k05H6muI017784 for ; Thu, 5 Jan 2006 12:06:48 -0500 Received: (from fche@localhost) by tooth.toronto.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id k05H6mGu017780; Thu, 5 Jan 2006 12:06:48 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: tooth.toronto.redhat.com: fche set sender to fche@redhat.com using -f To: systemtap@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: tapset feedback References: <20060105111717.6ED55180B7C@magilla.sf.frob.com> <1136478429.3853.14.camel@monkey2> From: fche@redhat.com (Frank Ch. Eigler) Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2006 17:06:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <1136478429.3853.14.camel@monkey2> Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) Emacs/21.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mailing-List: contact systemtap-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: systemtap-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-q1/txt/msg00020.txt.bz2 hunt wrote: > 1. My biggest issue with the way tapsets are implemented is that there > are no namespaces or ways to limit the scope of a function. Plus the > concepts of code libraries and tapsets are overlapped. [...] The HACKING file includes simple suggestions for prefixing internal identifiers to avoid namespace collisions. > 2. I am not running 2.6.14, 2.6.9-20.ELsmp, or 2.6.9-24.ELsmp on any > of my machines, so I cannot use the syscalls tapset. [...] The syscalls tapset has undergone several drastic changes. This latest repackaging was checked in without consultation, and indeed I don't think it's quite right. So please don't use that as a sole example to indict the whole scheme. > > [...] a user script might want to use kernel.syscall.foobar > > directly, then it will have to use % conditionals to avoid those > > uses on kernels where the probe won't be defined because it can't > > work; i.e., have to know the kernel versions to test for, > > This is exactly the ugly situation we now have. I don't understand why you think this is "ugly". If an user script specifically asks for a particular probe (.foobar), and it does not exist, why should the user be surprised by an error or having to work around it? > For every function that gets added/removed we have to know the exact > kernel versions it happened in. That's a different "we" - a systemtap library script developer. Yes, if such a developer decides to target a very fluid API, then she will pay the price of having to conditionalize it sufficiently. > [...] What I REALLY would like to see is a way to say "here is a > list of probe points. Set probes on as many as possible." Why exactly would you want to say something like that, and not by using wildcards? - FChE