syscall provider naming convention. Re: kern/152822: [patch] DTrace: syscall provider for compat/freebsd32

[Artem Belevich]

Hi,

I'm tinkering with DTrace syscall provider for COMPAT_FREEBSD32 and
linuxulator binaries and I wonder what would be the best way to name
those providers.

One option is to create separate provider for each compat variant.
E.g. syscall::write/syscall32::write/syscalllnx32::write..
Another to keep provider name as syscall and use 'module' to
distinguish between compat variants. E.g.
syscall:native:write:/syscall:freebsd32:write:/syscall:linux32:write:

I'm leaning towards using 'module' but I would appreciate hackers@
opinion on the best way to proceed.

Thanks,
--Artem

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Andriy Gapon <avg at freebsd.org>
Date: Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 11:15 AM
Subject: Re: kern/152822: [patch] DTrace: syscall provider for compat/freebsd32
To: Artem Belevich <fbsdlist at src.cx>
Cc: John Baldwin <jhb at freebsd.org>


on 11/12/2010 21:07 Artem Belevich said the following:
> I wonder if it would make more sense to keep provider as 'syscall' for
> all emulations, but set 'module' part to native/compat32/linux32.
>
> I.e. native write syscall would be specified as syscall:native:write:
> and linux32 as syscall:linux32:write:
> Wildcard spec like syscall::write: would match all write variants.
>
> What do you think?

Sounds like a very good idea to me!
Could you please run it by hackers@ just to see what other people think?
Thanks.
--
Andriy Gapon