Hi again,
Yes!
# ustctl enable <CHANNEL> <MARKER>
# ustctl set-path <NEW_PATH>
...
Although, since tracing session is the next step (actually ongoing), it
might be good to have something like that ? :
# ustctl trace1_name <OPTIONS> <COMMAND>
(And for the options, I will go with lttctl that I think is better :)
-o, --option OPTION
Set options, following operations are supported:
channel.<channelname>.enable=
channel.<channelname>.overwrite=
channel.<channelname>.bufnum=
channel.<channelname>.bufsize=
<channelname> can be set to all for all channels
channel.<channelname>.switch_timer= (timer interval in ms)
In any case, for usability, we should come up with something else then
long option like --enable-marker, --get-subbuf-size, ...
What do you think? Maybe telling us a bit what's your idea.
David
On 10-11-01 11:06 AM, Nils Carlson wrote:
I've been thinking about the ustctl cli lately. Mostly because I need to
add trace names to a lot of commands. The current api doesn't really
provide an obvious way forward. What I'm going to do first is just try
hack it in.
In the long-term though I'm wondering if we should move to something
more elegant, more like git or route? What do people think?
/Nils
_______________________________________________
ltt-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.casi.polymtl.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ltt-dev
--
David Goulet
LTTng project, DORSAL Lab.
PGP/GPG : 1024D/16BD8563
BE3C 672B 9331 9796 291A 14C6 4AF7 C14B 16BD 8563
_______________________________________________
ltt-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.casi.polymtl.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ltt-dev
