Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:44:28 -0500 From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: svn-src-projects@freebsd.org, Alfred Perlstein <alfred@freebsd.org>, src-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r245259 - projects/utrace2 Message-ID: <50F4520C.50500@mu.org> In-Reply-To: <201301141240.58356.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <201301101758.r0AHw6m7078896@svn.freebsd.org> <201301111029.23235.jhb@freebsd.org> <50F08363.5020909@mu.org> <201301141240.58356.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I think we are basically in agreement, however we differ on the following two points, whereas now I think we only differ on a single point. 1) belief that a 4 character string signature is superior to a protocol/version tuple. After looking at the code and thinking about this quite a bit, I agree with you that string based namespace is nicer, however I think we need the following changes: a) define the system namespace to have "_" preceding the trace name. so RTLD -> _RTL b) or maybe we need another few characters? 6 or 8 so that it can still be nice. so "_RTL" -> "_RTLD\0\0\0", "_MALLOC\0" c) we add a version field after the character string. d) we create a mechanism for requesting a utrace allocation namespace somewhere (/usr/share/utrace/allocations.txt) where vendors can allocate strings. 2) you believe that filtering this all through utrace(2) is OK. I would prefer that we leave utrace(2) alone and move forward with utrace2(2) to leave behind all the unformatted data we used to have. I would like to leave utrace(2) in the system and add utrace2(2) for new consumers. What do you think? My end goal is to make this something that more users can grab and use for a quick and handy debug tool and to actually build on this somewhat, (libutrace) what we have now (unstructured globs of whatever) does not work. -Alfred
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?50F4520C.50500>