external systemtap meeting notes 20070816
Frank Ch. Eigler
fche at redhat.com
Wed Sep 26 12:01:15 UTC 2007
Hi -
On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 01:42:29AM -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
> [...] The future non-signal mechanism I described there can have a
> reporting interface [...] The other part of the problem is
> insertion/removal. Naive non-cooperation works if they literally
> nest, but not if removal order is not LIFO. I don't have any
> implicit-communication solution for that off hand.
Yeah, this is roughly why we pointed out some time back that the
utrace layer would be well situated to provide a high-level
breakpoint-related API.
What do you suggest in the interim?
Would this hack work: have the second utrace engine refuse to put a
breakpoint wherever it suspects another engine may have put one? Or
even more pessimistically, can an engine know that another one is
already monitoring a given target process, and give up at attach time?
(That would defeat some of the promise of utrace, but so it goes.)
- FChE
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/utrace-devel/attachments/20070926/b3d2d654/attachment.sig>
More information about the utrace-devel
mailing list