From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Aug 26 13:25:21 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 74218D18; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 13:25:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.vangyzen.net (hotblack.vangyzen.net [IPv6:2607:fc50:1000:7400:216:3eff:fe72:314f]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55BCF366D; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 13:25:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from marvin.lab.vangyzen.net (c-24-125-214-90.hsd1.va.comcast.net [24.125.214.90]) by smtp.vangyzen.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2FB7156436; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 08:25:20 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <53FC8ABF.7000201@vangyzen.net> Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 09:25:19 -0400 From: Eric van Gyzen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Baldwin , freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ktrace -c behavior References: <53F79710.6090700@vangyzen.net> <20140824235336.GR71691@funkthat.com> <53FB386C.9030800@vangyzen.net> <9285902.gXIcESz31I@ralph.baldwin.cx> In-Reply-To: <9285902.gXIcESz31I@ralph.baldwin.cx> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 13:25:21 -0000 On 08/25/2014 16:23, John Baldwin wrote: > On Monday, August 25, 2014 09:21:48 AM Eric van Gyzen wrote: >> On 08/24/2014 19:53, John-Mark Gurney wrote: >>> Eric van Gyzen wrote this message on Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 15:26 -0400: >>>> On 08/22/2014 15:20, John-Mark Gurney wrote: >>>>> Eric van Gyzen wrote this message on Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 15:16 -0400: >>>>>> What behavior would you expect from this sequence of commands? >>>>>> >>>>>> ktrace -tw -p 1234 >>>>>> ktrace -c -p 1234 >>>>>> >>>>>> Based on this... >>>>>> >>>>>> -c Clear the trace points associated with the specified file >>>>>> >>>>>> or processes. >>>>> and/or just add specified: >>>>> Clear the specified trace points ... >>>> But what if I didn't specify them? >>> You specified the default by not specificly specifing any different >>> ones.. :) Confused? :) >> Amused. :) > Adding "specified" is the first thing that came to my mind as well. > >>> or maybe selected? >> Perhaps, but I didn't select them, either. My original suggestion is >> more--dare I use this word again--specific. It explains exactly how the >> command behaves. > But then do we need to annotate every place that uses "trace points" to add > this language? Note that the 'command' description uses the language John- > mark suggested: > > command > Execute command with the specified trace flags. > > My vote would be to add "specified" to the description of "-c", but to improve > the the description of "-t" itself from: > > -t trstr > The string argument represents the kernel trace points, one per > letter. The following table equates the letters with the trace- > points: > > > to: > > -t trstr > Specify the list of trace points to enable or disable, one per > letter. If an explicit list is not specified, the default set > of trace points is used. > > The following trace points are supported: Okay, that would work. Minor note: You might avoid repeating "specified" in the -c description: Clear the specified trace points associated with the /given/ file or processes. Thanks, guys. Eric