This is the mail archive of the systemtap@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the systemtap project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [RFC] Design + prototype: Multiple handler sets per probe address

From: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche at redhat dot com>
To: Prasanna S Panchamukhi <prasanna at in dot ibm dot com>
Cc: systemtap at sources dot redhat dot com
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 10:51:18 -0400
Subject: Re: [RFC] Design + prototype: Multiple handler sets per probe address
References: <20050404123541.GJ1715@in.ibm.com> <20050404133758.GA17776@redhat.com> <20050404144213.GC11213@in.ibm.com>

Hi -

On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 08:12:13PM +0530, Prasanna S Panchamukhi wrote:
> Its not only about having just separate module, but you can provide
> a separate layer/interface on top of existing kprobes interface
> without even modifying the existing kprobes interface.

I understand the concept and benefits of a layered interface.  This
one just doesn't strike me as a good candidate for one.  Can you
think of some good reasons, apart from that it might be possible?

- FChE

Attachment: pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature

References:
- Re: [RFC] Design + prototype: Multiple handler sets per probe address
  - From: Prasanna S Panchamukhi
- Re: [RFC] Design + prototype: Multiple handler sets per probe address
  - From: Frank Ch. Eigler
- Re: [RFC] Design + prototype: Multiple handler sets per probe address
  - From: Prasanna S Panchamukhi

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]