On Nov 19, 2007, at 4:25 PM, Brendan Gregg - Sun Microsystems wrote: > G'Day, > > On Sat, Nov 17, 2007 at 11:23:35PM -0600, Spencer Shepler wrote: >> >> On Nov 16, 2007, at 3:53 PM, Adam Leventhal wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 03:20:02PM -0600, Spencer Shepler wrote: > [...] >>>> 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 > > Yes, "proc" sounds too much like process; however "procedure" > sounds like > something new I didn't know about in NFSv4. > >> 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. > eg, > http://www.nasconf.com/pres04/spencer.pdf > > Sorry, I'm not picking your own presentation to make a point, > rather it > was the first docs I found when googling. :-)
Heh, that is funny. > > Anyhow, that's just my opinion as an end-user. > Sure. As mentioned, I don't have a strong opinion about it. Spencer _______________________________________________ dtrace-discuss mailing list dtrace-discuss@opensolaris.org
