On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 01:53:05PM -0800, Adam Leventhal wrote: > 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: > > >>(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.
I don't see that. I think what Spencer and I are saying is that COMPOUND is not an operation, but a procedure. And folks who know the protocol would expect the probe naming to reflect the procedure vs. operation distinction. It's mostly six of one and half-a-dozen of the other, but suppose v4.2 added a COMPOUND OP (no, I'm sure that wouldn't happen)... I think the simplest thing to do is to let the probe names reflect the protocol element names wherever probes relate directly to protocol elements. It may be wordier, but it will be less surprising to those who know the protocol (and yes, I realize that the proponents here know the protocol, much better than I know it too). Nico -- _______________________________________________ dtrace-discuss mailing list dtrace-discuss@opensolaris.org
