On Nov 19, 2007, at 4:18 PM, Brendan Gregg - Sun Microsystems wrote: > On Mon, Nov 19, 2007 at 04:36:30PM -0600, Nicolas Williams wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 19, 2007 at 02:25:02PM -0800, Brendan Gregg - Sun >> Microsystems wrote: >>>> "proc" => procedure >>> >>> Yes, "proc" sounds too much like process; however "procedure" >>> sounds like >>> something new I didn't know about in NFSv4. >> >> "Procedure" is part of ONC/RPC (NFS being an ONC/RPC "program") >> and goes >> back ~20 years (more when you consider the other, then popular RPC >> frameworks). >> >>>> and that is what NULL and COMPOUND are. They are procedures. >>>> The "operations" are NFSv4 inventions and not part of the >>>> RPC/XDR nomenclature. >>> >>> While I'm sure that's true, from what I've read about NFSv4 the >>> terms >>> "compound" and "operation" are familiar, and the term "procedure" >>> isn't. >> >> Well, NFSv2/3 never had compounds nor operations -- they only had >> procedures. So, "proc" is nothing new. > > It is something new, for customers who have read Sun's documentation - > which was my point. > > "Many Solaris NFS version 3 operations return the file attributes," > http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/816-4555/6maoqui8f?a=view > > Good luck finding "procedure" used in the exact same context. > Sun's use > of "operation" to mean "procedure" goes back many years. >
A slightly different proposal... how about: nfsv4:::compound-start nfsv4:::compound-done nfsv4:::cb-compound-start nfsv4:::cb-compound-done Why this? 1. It is correct from a NFSv4 RPC program point of view. 2. "proc" isn't there to cause confusion. 3. It is fewer characters to type. Thanks, Lisa _______________________________________________ dtrace-discuss mailing list [email protected]
