> I mostly agree with that ... I just think that effort is what Adam was > referring to as putting lipstick on a pig. > > My understanding of the rationale is that it's better to have access > to a raw, undoctored syscall interface when you really need it, than > to have a prettified interface that might not let you see all the > details when you want to. > > In other words, a better answer might be to create an "abi" provider > that maps into the stable programming interface, and leave syscall > alone.
Fair enough. As long as there's some way for someone to write a script that corresponds to the documented "system" calls without having to rely on implementation artifacts. -- meem _______________________________________________ dtrace-discuss mailing list [email protected]
