SystemTap questions: user/kernel communication & pass compiilation options to module build

[Dave Nomura]

Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> Hi -
>
> Dave Nomura <dcnltc@us.ibm.com> writes:
>
>   
>> I was thinking more along the lines of linking in an archive (*.a or
>> *.so) of C routines that could be shared between a SystemTap
>> implementation and a non-SystemTap implementation. [...]
>>     

>   I can't think of a good reason not to permit
> additional .a/.o's to be included in a systemtap module.  SOme issues:
>
> - the .a/.o files need to be built to be perfectly compatible with
>   the target kernel.  It is rare to do this via means other than
>   actually shipping sources and compiling them on the fly, which is
>   tantamount to the embedded-C method I already described.
>   
Good point.  I hadn't given these issues much thought.  Perhaps the most 
reliable and easiest way of ensuring compatibilty is to  #include of the 
embedded C source code as you suggested earlier.  Is there a way to pass 
an -I<path> option to the module builder?  I tried this but it didn't 
appear to work.  Would I have to use INCLUDE_PATH?
> - buildrun.cxx would have to be taught to include references to  
>   these libraries/objects in the module makefile
> - licenses need to be compatible if the combined result is to be
>   distributed
> - some headers will need to be shared too in order for the systemtap
>   code to be able to refer to the stuff in the .a/.o
>
> - FChE
>   


-- 
Dave Nomura
LTC Linux Power Toolchain