On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 11:11:07PM +0200, Andriy Gapon wrote: > > I never understood why FreeBSD SDT as opposed to upstream SDT requires the > same > or almost the same probe name to be specified twice. This seems to be silly > and > a little bit error-prone. > In other words, I do not see any reason not to re-use the original upstream > trick where double underscore in a providers name in the C code gets converted > to a single dash in a DTrace provider name. [*] > > So here is my take at that: > http://people.freebsd.org/~avg/sdt-sname-removal.diff > > An inline preview of the change: > -SDT_PROBE_DEFINE1(priv, kernel, priv_check, priv_ok, priv-ok, "int"); > -SDT_PROBE_DEFINE1(priv, kernel, priv_check, priv_err, priv-err, "int"); > +SDT_PROBE_DEFINE1(priv, kernel, priv_check, priv__ok, "int"); > +SDT_PROBE_DEFINE1(priv, kernel, priv_check, priv__err, "int"); > > It's possible that I missed some places where old style SDT_PROBE_DEFINE > macros > are used or where an old probe name is used with SDT_PROBE_ARGTYPE or > SDT_PROBE.
A good way to test this is to compare the output of 'dtrace -lv' with and without your change. If nothing changes, I'd be pretty confident that the diff is correct. > > Please test, review, comment, etc. I don't think this diff will apply cleanly to head - I've made some changes that will cause conflicts, and the diff doesn't touch netinet/in_kdtrace.c or kern/subr_devstat.c. Could you also update the SDT(9) man page? Also the "strlcpy(name, ..." immediately before the loop you added to sdt.c becomes redundant. Thanks, -Mark _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-dtrace To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
