On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 10:08 AM Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 10:56:09AM +0530, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > > There is some overlap between Dtrace functionality and this > > functionality. But I see differences too. E.g. injection points offer > > deeper integration whereas dtrace provides more information to the > > probe like callstack and argument values etc. We need to assess > > whether these functionality can co-exist and whether we need both of > > them. If the answer to both of these questions is yes, it will be good > > to add documentation explaining the differences and similarities and > > also some guidance on when to use what. > > Perhaps, I'm not sure how much we want to do regarding that yet, > injection points have no external dependencies and will work across > all environments as long as dlsym() (or an equivalent) is able to > work, while being cheaper because they don't spawn an external process > to trace the call.
Yes. Both have their advantages and disadvantages. So I believe both will stay but that means the guidance is necessary. We may want to see reception and add the guidance later in the release cycle. > > > Other code changes look good. I think the documentation and comments > > need some changes esp. considering the users point of view. Have > > attached two patches (0003, and 0004) with those changes to be applied > > on top of 0001 and 0002 respectively. Please review them. Might need > > some wordsmithy and language correction. Attaching the whole patch set > > to keep cibot happy. > > The CF bot was perhaps happy but your 0004 has forgotten to update the > expected output. There were also a few typos, some markups and edits > required for 0002 but as a whole what you have suggested was an > improvement. Thanks. Sorry for that. Glad that you found those suggestions acceptable. -- Best Wishes, Ashutosh Bapat
