Subject: Re: adding utrace(2) ?
To: None <dolecek@ics.muni.cz>
From: Simon J. Gerraty <sjg@quick.com.au>
List: tech-kern
Date: 12/18/2000 11:41:36
>besides length of the record. I'd probably at least add a
>'const char *caller' argument, so that caller can be clearly labeled.

Oh!  Yes my plan was to add a syscal that took a char *, simply
for the purpose of the string turning up in traces.  Adding printf's
is a pain and not always feasible until you know roughly which
library or whatever is causing grief.

If utrace(2) doesn't take a char *, then its not that useful.

Thanks
--sjg