Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2014 16:53:36 -0700 From: John-Mark Gurney <jmg@funkthat.com> To: Eric van Gyzen <eric@vangyzen.net> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ktrace -c behavior Message-ID: <20140824235336.GR71691@funkthat.com> In-Reply-To: <53F79971.4050802@vangyzen.net> References: <53F79710.6090700@vangyzen.net> <20140822192034.GA71691@funkthat.com> <53F79971.4050802@vangyzen.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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? :)
or maybe selected?
> >> ...I would expect the second command to clear the trace point for
> >> context switches. It doesn't. I have to specify -tw with the -c to get
> >> that behavior. This makes sense; it's just not what I was expecting.
> >>
> >> Assuming we want to keep this behavior, can we clarify the -c flag in
> >> man page? I would suggest:
> >>
> >> If the -t flag is not specified, clear the default set of trace points.
> > Maybe we should add a new trace point string that is a (for all).. so
> > you can do ktrace -ta -c?
>
> That would be handy.
--
John-Mark Gurney Voice: +1 415 225 5579
"All that I will do, has been done, All that I have, has not."
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20140824235336.GR71691>