Chris, On Fri, Nov 04, 2022 at 10:35:17AM -0700, Chris wrote: C> > the reason I want to retire it is not that it consumes 40 Kb C> > in the repository. The reason is that knows kernel structures, C> > and fails to compile after changes to them. So the tool that C> > nobody uses requires special care when working on TCP. The C> > kernel headers disclose the structures for trpt (with some C> > protection with _WANT_TCPCB, though) and some software from C> > ports (not calling names!) would start use them too. Now a C> > kernel developer needs to care not only about trpt, but C> > about this software, too. C> > C> > On the kernel side there is also TCPDEBUG code that needs C> > to be kept compilable, while apparently nobody uses it. C> While I really hate hearing that small utils C> (almost elegant in their simplicity) that have worked perfectly C> well for a great many years must be kicked to the curb. I guess C> I can see your point. However I think TCPDEBUG affects a great C> deal more that trpt(8). I hope your not implying that it should C> go as well.
I'd like to hear use scenarios of TCPDEBUG without trpt. What does it provide that other logging facilities (BB, DTrace) doesn't? -- Gleb Smirnoff
