Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 11:43:05 -0800 From: Artem Belevich <fbsdlist@src.cx> To: FreeBSD Hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: syscall provider naming convention. Re: kern/152822: [patch] DTrace: syscall provider for compat/freebsd32 Message-ID: <AANLkTi=z1_KWKmhqFjNYHZfgAyPgsUVvgJ0P29KOPpnZ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, I'm tinkering with DTrace syscall provider for COMPAT_FREEBSD32 and linuxulator binaries and I wonder what would be the best way to name those providers. One option is to create separate provider for each compat variant. E.g. syscall::write/syscall32::write/syscalllnx32::write.. Another to keep provider name as syscall and use 'module' to distinguish between compat variants. E.g. syscall:native:write:/syscall:freebsd32:write:/syscall:linux32:write: I'm leaning towards using 'module' but I would appreciate hackers@ opinion on the best way to proceed. Thanks, --Artem ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Andriy Gapon <avg@freebsd.org> Date: Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 11:15 AM Subject: Re: kern/152822: [patch] DTrace: syscall provider for compat/freebsd32 To: Artem Belevich <fbsdlist@src.cx> Cc: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> on 11/12/2010 21:07 Artem Belevich said the following: > I wonder if it would make more sense to keep provider as 'syscall' for > all emulations, but set 'module' part to native/compat32/linux32. > > I.e. native write syscall would be specified as syscall:native:write: > and linux32 as syscall:linux32:write: > Wildcard spec like syscall::write: would match all write variants. > > What do you think? Sounds like a very good idea to me! Could you please run it by hackers@ just to see what other people think? Thanks. -- Andriy Gapon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AANLkTi=z1_KWKmhqFjNYHZfgAyPgsUVvgJ0P29KOPpnZ>