Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 21:53:41 +0100 From: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: syscall provider naming convention. Re: kern/152822: [patch] DTrace: syscall provider for compat/freebsd32 Message-ID: <20101211215341.0000097c@unknown> In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=z1_KWKmhqFjNYHZfgAyPgsUVvgJ0P29KOPpnZ@mail.gmail.com> References: <AANLkTi=z1_KWKmhqFjNYHZfgAyPgsUVvgJ0P29KOPpnZ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 11 Dec 2010 11:43:05 -0800 Artem Belevich <fbsdlist@src.cx> wrote: > 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. Maybe a little bit related: do you know about my (unfortunately out-of-date) branch to add dtrace providers to the linuxulator? http://svn.freebsd.org/viewvc/base/user/netchild/linuxulator-dtrace/ If you are interested feel free to borrow things from there. > I'm leaning towards using 'module' but I would appreciate hackers@ > opinion on the best way to proceed. My first thought was that this is a good idea. My second thought was the question if you can make the provided values there compatible enough that a dtrace script is able to cope with it when someone does not uses a specific module but the wirldcard operator. If not I suggest to think again about it. Bye, Alexander.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20101211215341.0000097c>