From owner-svn-src-projects@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jan 14 19:37:09 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-projects@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [8.8.178.115]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF183625; Mon, 14 Jan 2013 19:37:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from bigwig.baldwin.cx (bigknife-pt.tunnel.tserv9.chi1.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f10:75::2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 967FB34C; Mon, 14 Jan 2013 19:37:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pakbsde14.localnet (unknown [38.105.238.108]) by bigwig.baldwin.cx (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0EACFB95E; Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:37:09 -0500 (EST) From: John Baldwin To: Alfred Perlstein Subject: Re: svn commit: r245259 - projects/utrace2 Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:01:46 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (FreeBSD/8.2-CBSD-20110714-p22; KDE/4.5.5; amd64; ; ) References: <201301101758.r0AHw6m7078896@svn.freebsd.org> <201301141240.58356.jhb@freebsd.org> <50F4520C.50500@mu.org> In-Reply-To: <50F4520C.50500@mu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201301141401.46622.jhb@freebsd.org> X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (bigwig.baldwin.cx); Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:37:09 -0500 (EST) Cc: svn-src-projects@freebsd.org, Alfred Perlstein , src-committers@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: svn-src-projects@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "SVN commit messages for the src " projects" tree" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 19:37:09 -0000 On Monday, January 14, 2013 1:44:28 pm Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > 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. I disagree with this last assertion. On what basis do you claim that what we have now does not work? Do you have any specific examples besides hypothetical cases? I fail to see how utrace() in its current form is not already useful, and I've yet to see a convincing argument from you that it is not. -- John Baldwin