> >>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.
The plan is to have a different provider; either nfsv4c or nfsv4client or something. > >> 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. How funny is it? Will we want to support both the nfsv4 and nfsv41 providers? Will the probes overlap in a way that would create incompatibilities? Adam -- Adam Leventhal, FishWorks http://blogs.sun.com/ahl _______________________________________________ dtrace-discuss mailing list [email protected]
