On Nov 16, 2007, at 3:53 PM, 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:
>>>> 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.

"proc" => procedure

and that is what NULL and COMPOUND are.  They are procedures.
The "operations" are NFSv4 inventions and not part of the
RPC/XDR nomenclature.

The reason I didn't suggest "proc-forward" and "proc-callback" is
that normally "proc" is known to be the client initiating interaction
with the server and left the naming such that it would be implied.

I don't have a strong opinion here.  Suggestion has been made and
the project team can choose whether to utilize it.

Spencer

_______________________________________________
dtrace-discuss mailing list
[email protected]

Reply via email to