On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 02:49:48PM +0530, Abhishek Tiwari wrote: > Going with the above description for narrow statfs-> > > Is naming %statfs = statfs+statfs64 as TRACE_NSTATFS and shorthand as TNS > fine ?
So, after some thinking, I have the following scheme in mind: {old,}stat{,64} TRACE_STAT TST {old,}lstat{,64} TRACE_LSTAT TLST {old,new,}fstat{,at}64 TRACE_FSTAT TFST {old,new,}{,l,f}stat{,x,at}{,64} TRACE_STAT_LIKE TSTA ("stat alike") statfs{,64} TRACE_STATFS TSF fstatfs{,64} TRACE_FSTATFS TFSF {,f}statfs{,64}, ustat TRACE_STATFS_LIKE TSFA ("statfs alike") Calls with bsd43_/osf_/posix_/svr4_/sysv_ prefixes go to the corresponding calls without them. I'm not really sure about {svr4,sysv}_{,f}statvfs, but they are decoded as printargs and looks like they should be related to {,f}statfs calls. Does it make any sense? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Strace-devel mailing list Strace-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/strace-devel