From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: david.goulet@polymtl.ca (David Goulet)
Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2010 12:24:46 -0400
Subject: [ltt-dev] [UST] ustctl cli
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1011011601240.18021@as68123.uab.ericsson.se>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1011011601240.18021@as68123.uab.ericsson.se>
Message-ID: <4CD03B4E.5000205@polymtl.ca>

Hi again,

Yes!

# ustctl enable <CHANNEL> <MARKER>
# ustctl set-path <NEW_PATH>
...

Although, since tracing session is the next step (actually ongoing), it 
might be good to have something like that ? :

# ustctl trace1_name <OPTIONS> <COMMAND>

(And for the options, I will go with lttctl that I think is better :)
   -o, --option OPTION
         Set options, following operations are supported:
         channel.<channelname>.enable=
         channel.<channelname>.overwrite=
         channel.<channelname>.bufnum=
         channel.<channelname>.bufsize=
         <channelname> can be set to all for all channels
         channel.<channelname>.switch_timer= (timer interval in ms)

In any case, for usability, we should come up with something else then 
long option like --enable-marker, --get-subbuf-size, ...

What do you think? Maybe telling us a bit what's your idea.

David

On 10-11-01 11:06 AM, Nils Carlson wrote:
> I've been thinking about the ustctl cli lately. Mostly because I need to
> add trace names to a lot of commands. The current api doesn't really
> provide an obvious way forward. What I'm going to do first is just try
> hack it in.
>
> In the long-term though I'm wondering if we should move to something
> more elegant, more like git or route? What do people think?
>
> /Nils
>
> _______________________________________________
> ltt-dev mailing list
> ltt-dev at lists.casi.polymtl.ca
> http://lists.casi.polymtl.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ltt-dev

-- 
David Goulet
LTTng project, DORSAL Lab.

PGP/GPG : 1024D/16BD8563
BE3C 672B 9331 9796 291A  14C6 4AF7 C14B 16BD 8563