Re: [dtrace-discuss] [illumos-Developer] Reaping enablings on defunct providers

2011-07-12 Thread Adam Leventhal
Hey Bryan, This is great stuff, and -- as you say -- something that we've all wanted for a long long time. The code looks great. The only addition I'd ask for is if you considered having a case with bufpolicy=ring and/or anonymous tracing. I had a few questions: Can you explain the purpose of

Re: [dtrace-discuss] [illumos-Developer] Reaping enablings on defunct providers

2011-07-12 Thread Bryan Cantrill
Hey Adam, This is great stuff, and -- as you say -- something that we've all wanted for a long long time. The code looks great. The only addition I'd ask for is if you considered having a case with bufpolicy=ring and/or anonymous tracing. Supporting a ring buffer policy is a tad brutal,

Re: [dtrace-discuss] [illumos-Developer] Reaping enablings on defunct providers

2011-07-12 Thread Bryan Cantrill
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 5:25 PM, Adam Leventhal a...@delphix.com wrote: I actually meant a negative test case. As I imagine you saw, there's already one there that uses speculative tracing and verifies that enablings are not reaped:  usr/src/cmd/dtrace/test/tst/common/usdt/tst.noreap.ksh