(2013/09/25 15:03), Hemant wrote: >>> I have one doubt here. Why do we need [ARG ...] in the syntax you >>> specified? I believe these args are to fetched from the sdt notes' >>> section of the elf of the executable/library. Or am I taking this in a >>> wrong way and this suggested syntax is actually for the uprobe_events >>> file in the tracing directory? >> Hm, indeed. Since all the arguments of the marker is defined in sdt notes, >> we actually don't need to specify each of them. However, other probe syntax >> has those arguments. I'd like to keep the same syntax style in the >> same command (action) for avoiding confusion. > > Hmm, got it. > >> I recommend this way; at the first step, we just find the marker address from >> sdt. And next, we will make the argument available. And eventually, >> it is better to introduce "$args" meta argument to fetch all the arguments >> of the marker. >> >> At this point, we can do >> >> perf probe %foo:bar $args > > So, at first step (ignoring the arguments), we can go with : > perf probe %foo:bar
Right, > And, once, the argument support is enabled (all the arguments will be > fetched at the marker location), we can go with: > perf probe %foo:bar $args Correct ;). In my plan, $parms and $vars will be also introduced for accessing all function parameters and local variables correspondingly. Thank you! -- Masami HIRAMATSU IT Management Research Dept. Linux Technology Center Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research Laboratory E-mail: masami.hiramatsu...@hitachi.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
