This is the mail archive of the
systemtap@sourceware.org
mailing list for the systemtap project.
RE: Order "begin" probes are run
- From: "Stone, Joshua I" <joshua dot i dot stone at intel dot com>
- To: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche at redhat dot com>, "Mike Mason" <mmlnx at us dot ibm dot com>
- Cc: <systemtap at sources dot redhat dot com>
- Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 13:57:18 -0800
- Subject: RE: Order "begin" probes are run
On Wednesday, November 29, 2006 1:23 PM, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> Mike Mason <mmlnx@us.ibm.com> writes:
>> Seems reasonable to expect tapset "begin" probes to always run
>> before a script's "begin" probe. [...]
>
> One might also imagine cases where it could work the other way.
>
> We could solve this by parametrizing: adding a sequence parameter to
> "probe begin(N)" (and "end(M)"), and sorting them. Easy to implement.
This is a nice idea -- if you make the default priority zero for those
who don't specify it, then things can "just work". Users can write an
unparameterized 'begin' as usual, and the tapset writer can initialize
in a 'begin(-1)' -- or 'begin(-2^63)' if paranoia kicks in...
Josh