This is the mail archive of the systemtap@sourceware.org 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] Systemtap translator support for hardware breakpoints on

From: Roland McGrath <roland at redhat dot com>
To: prasad at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com
Cc: Prerna Saxena <prerna at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>, systemtap at sourceware dot org
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 13:36:47 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: [RFC] Systemtap translator support for hardware breakpoints on
References: <4B459CC8.2030402@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20100108015301.72EF67300@magilla.sf.frob.com> <20100109011140.GB3486@in.ibm.com> <20100109014457.EF791CC@magilla.sf.frob.com> <20100109024616.GA6810@in.ibm.com>

> So, is the .unavailable probe's role just to warn the user that his
> request has failed? Or do you see more uses for the same (that isn't
> obvious to me)?

The example I had meant to suggest was writing a tapset or script that
would like to use a watchpoint to implement some particular higher-level
tracing, but is prepared to fall back to a different technique if it is not
possible to install a watchpoint.


Thanks,
Roland

References:
- [RFC] Systemtap translator support for hardware breakpoints on
  - From: Prerna Saxena
- Re: [RFC] Systemtap translator support for hardware breakpoints on
  - From: Roland McGrath
- Re: [RFC] Systemtap translator support for hardware breakpoints on
  - From: K.Prasad
- Re: [RFC] Systemtap translator support for hardware breakpoints on
  - From: Roland McGrath
- Re: [RFC] Systemtap translator support for hardware breakpoints on
  - From: K.Prasad

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