on 31/10/2013 05:36 Mark Johnston said the following: > On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 11:11:07PM +0200, Andriy Gapon wrote: >> >> I never understood why FreeBSD SDT as opposed to upstream SDT requires the >> same >> or almost the same probe name to be specified twice. This seems to be silly >> and >> a little bit error-prone. >> In other words, I do not see any reason not to re-use the original upstream >> trick where double underscore in a providers name in the C code gets >> converted >> to a single dash in a DTrace provider name. [*] >> >> So here is my take at that: >> http://people.freebsd.org/~avg/sdt-sname-removal.diff >> >> An inline preview of the change: >> -SDT_PROBE_DEFINE1(priv, kernel, priv_check, priv_ok, priv-ok, "int"); >> -SDT_PROBE_DEFINE1(priv, kernel, priv_check, priv_err, priv-err, "int"); >> +SDT_PROBE_DEFINE1(priv, kernel, priv_check, priv__ok, "int"); >> +SDT_PROBE_DEFINE1(priv, kernel, priv_check, priv__err, "int"); >> >> It's possible that I missed some places where old style SDT_PROBE_DEFINE >> macros >> are used or where an old probe name is used with SDT_PROBE_ARGTYPE or >> SDT_PROBE. > > A good way to test this is to compare the output of 'dtrace -lv' with and > without your change. If nothing changes, I'd be pretty confident that > the diff is correct.
Provided that my kernel has all of the SDT probes :-) >> >> Please test, review, comment, etc. > > I don't think this diff will apply cleanly to head - I've made some changes > that will cause conflicts, and the diff doesn't touch netinet/in_kdtrace.c > or kern/subr_devstat.c. Oh, yes, my head is from ~ 2 month ago. Need to update ASAP and will rebase the change then. > Could you also update the SDT(9) man page? Also > the "strlcpy(name, ..." immediately before the loop you added to sdt.c > becomes redundant. Good points. Will fix. -- Andriy Gapon _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-dtrace To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
