On Nov 15, 2007, at 3:14 PM, Nicolas Williams wrote: > On Thu, Nov 15, 2007 at 03:03:15PM -0600, Spencer Shepler wrote: >> Given that these protocol mechanisms will exist at client and >> server, it would be helpful to have a naming mechanism that >> differentiated this fact. > > Perhaps the module name could be used as the differentiator? > > nfsv4:client::op-<op> > nfsv4:server::op-<op>
No preference; just needs to be present. I will take the opportunity to note that there are certain optimizations (not drastic but they do exist) such that the argument/results structures of interest are extended in their local representation and in that vein may not be fully populated. There also may be future optimizations such that the NFSv4 operations are not "executed" separately but are grouped together under one stream of execution and therefore the dtrace points may not represent true operation processing. If the intent is to capture all of the processing of an operation under these dtrace points, then intent may be broken or hard to supply moving forward. > >> I also assume that when NFSv4.1 >> is introduced that the provider will be expanded to something >> like: >> >> nfsv41:::op-access-start ACCESS4args * >> ... > > Does 4.1 differ so much from 4 that the provider name itself must > differ? That's funny. Yes. Spencer _______________________________________________ dtrace-discuss mailing list [email protected]
