From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24330 invoked by alias); 10 Mar 2012 15:52:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 24321 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Mar 2012 15:52:27 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sat, 10 Mar 2012 15:52:10 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q2AFq6AP019601 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 10 Mar 2012 10:52:06 -0500 Received: from psique (ovpn-112-58.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.112.58]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q2AFpxeu030664; Sat, 10 Mar 2012 10:52:01 -0500 From: Sergio Durigan Junior To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: Jan Kratochvil , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, tromey@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Implement support for SystemTap probes on userspace References: <83haxwzy92.fsf@gnu.org> <20120310085433.GA26446@host2.jankratochvil.net> <83eht0zuyf.fsf@gnu.org> X-URL: http://www.redhat.com Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2012 15:52:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <83eht0zuyf.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Sat, 10 Mar 2012 11:06:16 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2012-03/txt/msg00372.txt.bz2 On Saturday, March 10 2012, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2012 09:54:33 +0100 >> From: Jan Kratochvil >> Cc: Sergio Durigan Junior , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, >> tromey@redhat.com >> >> > May I suggest that the new command be called "info stap-probes" >> > instead? IMO, "probe" is much too general, and may conflict in the >> > future with some other feature that uses similar facilities or >> > terminology. >> >> There can be "info probes stap" and "info probes foo" in the future with "info >> probes" calling all the existing probe backends. > > Works for me. Or maybe "info sdt-probes" that would cover all of the > varieties of this kind of probes, as in my other suggestion. I don't really have a preference (though I lean towards Jan suggestion because of how GDB already deals with such cases). So, which one do you guys prefer? -- Sergio