On Sat, 11 Dec 2010 23:38:32 -0800 Artem Belevich fbsdl...@src.cx
wrote:
Functionally both approaches are about the same functionally. Each has
pluses and minuses. Using module, though, looks somewhat cleaner.
I agree.
Bye,
Alexander.
___
on 13/12/2010 11:35 Alexander Leidinger said the following:
On Sat, 11 Dec 2010 23:38:32 -0800 Artem Belevich fbsdl...@src.cx
wrote:
Functionally both approaches are about the same functionally. Each has
pluses and minuses. Using module, though, looks somewhat cleaner.
I agree.
+1, just
I've posted updated version of the patch here:
https://sites.google.com/site/abc678site/files/dt-systrace.patch.gz
This patch uses DTrace module field to specify syscall's compat
variant in the syscall probe name.
The patch also adds syscall probe for linux32 binaries on amd64. I'll
try to add
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.
One option is to create separate provider for each compat variant.
E.g. syscall::write/syscall32::write/syscalllnx32::write..
Another to
On Sat, 11 Dec 2010 11:43:05 -0800 Artem Belevich fbsdl...@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
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out-of-date) branch to add dtrace providers to the linuxulator?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'll take a look.
I'm leaning
6 matches
Mail list logo