On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 03:20:02PM -0600, Spencer Shepler wrote: > >On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 12:58:19PM -0600, Nicolas Williams wrote: > >>On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 10:53:59AM -0800, Adam Leventhal wrote: > >>>>> probe name args[2] > >>>>> ---------- ------- > >>>>> nfsv4:::compound-op-start COMPOUND4args * > >>>>> nfsv4:::compound-op-done COMPOUND4res * > >>>>> > >>>>> ... > >>>>> > >>>>> nfsv4:::compound-cb-start CB_COMPOUND4args * > >>>>> nfsv4:::compound-cb-done CB_COMPOUND4res * > >>>> > >>>>COMPOUND is an RPC, things like OPEN are ops inside a compound. > >>>>So at > >>>>least the names of these probes are inconsistent. > >>> > >>>What names would you suggest? > >> > >>nfsv4:::compound-start > >>nfsv4:::compound-done > >>nfsv4:::compound-cb-start > >>nfsv4:::compound-cb-done > >> > >>(I.e., drop the "op-" in the client->server compound direction.) > > > >We chose to include 'op-' because we thought that it created better > >symmetry > >with 'compound-cb'. The 'op-' doesn't indicate that it's an > >operation (that > >would be 'op-compound-start'; rather it indicates that its the > >operation > >compound rather than the callback compound. > > nfsv4:::compound-proc-start > nfsv4:::compound-proc-done > nfsv4:::compound-proc-cb-start > nfsv4:::compound-proc-cb-done > > and to be complete > > nfsv4:::null-proc-start > nfsv4:::null-proc-done
Why is that better? Can you explain a bit? It still seems as though you're still losing the symmetry between the compound operations and callbacks, but perhaps that's intentional. Adam -- Adam Leventhal, FishWorks http://blogs.sun.com/ahl _______________________________________________ dtrace-discuss mailing list [email protected]
