* Matthew Khouzam ([email protected]) wrote: > > > On 11-11-02 10:00 AM, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Following discussions at LinuxCon, there are two changes I would like to > > propose for the TRACEPOINT_EVENT API. Comments are welcome: > > > > 1) Change the first argument of TRACEPOINT_EVENT, defined as: > > > > < [com_company_]project_[component_]event > > > > > for two arguments, separated by a comma: > > > > < [com_company_]project[_component] >, < event > > > > > This would be more in line with the Dtrace "provider, event" scheme, > > which is already very much in use for instrumentation. This would allow > > application developers to make the mapping to dtrace instrumentation > > they might already have more easiy. > Basically to illustrate that: > TRACEPOINT_EVENT( com_efficios_babeltrace_reader_openfile, ... ) > becomes > TRACEPOINT_EVENT( com_efficios_babeltrace_reader, openfile, ... ) > I like it, it's not overly complex and forces people to better think out > their tracepoint names.
OK. And in terms of UI, we have a few choices, feedback would be welcome: lttng enable-event -k provider.event_name lttng enable-event -k provider/event_name lttng enable-event -k provider:event_name This would impact the way the events are shown in babeltrace too. Thoughts ? Thanks, Mathieu -- Mathieu Desnoyers Operating System Efficiency R&D Consultant EfficiOS Inc. http://www.efficios.com _______________________________________________ ltt-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.casi.polymtl.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ltt-dev
