Peter Memishian writes:
The problem is really in the distinction between section two of the
man pages (the historical system call interface) and the real
OpenSolaris system call interface that dtrace exposes as syscall.
Dtrace syscall isn't the same thing as man page section two,
I mostly agree with that ... I just think that effort is what Adam was
referring to as putting lipstick on a pig.
My understanding of the rationale is that it's better to have access
to a raw, undoctored syscall interface when you really need it, than
to have a prettified interface
Adam Leventhal wrote:
On Sat, Feb 02, 2008 at 10:03:33PM -0600, Mike Gerdts wrote:
My view of 6590548[1] says that it is closed as not a defect but does
not offer any clues as to why it is not a defect. Any chance of
getting this cleared up?
I'm not sure why we don't include the evaluation
Nicolas Williams writes:
On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 05:44:05PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Nicolas Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This pig isn't very attractive. Is a system call number shortage the
underlying problem? And is the fix to this ultimately about fixing the
syscall
Nicolas Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 05:44:05PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Nicolas Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This pig isn't very attractive. Is a system call number shortage the
underlying problem? And is the fix to this ultimately about fixing
Nicolas Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
unlink(2) and unlinkat(2) are different system calls. unlinkat(2) is
actually a
subcode (number 5) of the SYS_fsat system call. While it might be confusing
to u
sers, DTrace isn't going to slap lipstack on that particular pig.
[...]
On Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 01:34:02PM -0800, Adam Leventhal wrote:
I'm not sure why we don't include the evaluation in the public version, but
here it is:
---8---
Evaluation
[ahl 8.9.2007]
unlink(2) and unlinkat(2) are different system calls. unlinkat(2) is
On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 05:44:05PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Nicolas Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This pig isn't very attractive. Is a system call number shortage the
underlying problem? And is the fix to this ultimately about fixing the
syscall number shortage?
grouping
The problem is really in the distinction between section two of the
man pages (the historical system call interface) and the real
OpenSolaris system call interface that dtrace exposes as syscall.
Dtrace syscall isn't the same thing as man page section two, as the
former is an
On Feb 1, 2008 12:09 PM, James Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's not actually missing. A quick sunsolve search will get you CR
6590548, which explains that fsat is the actual syscall involved.
My view of 6590548[1] says that it is closed as not a defect but does
not offer any clues as to
I see that rm(1) uses unlinkat(2), but I don't see a syscall provider
probe for unlinkat(2). That's... annoying (but there's always the fbt
provider).
Actually, I don't see any syscall provider probes for any of the
open/unlink/rename/...at[64]() system calls. Is there a CR for this?
Nico
--
On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 01:09:22PM -0500, James Carlson wrote:
Nicolas Williams writes:
I see that rm(1) uses unlinkat(2), but I don't see a syscall provider
probe for unlinkat(2). That's... annoying (but there's always the fbt
provider).
Actually, I don't see any syscall provider
12 matches
Mail list logo
