Re: missing SDT_PROVIDER_DEFINE(sdt)

[Taylor R Campbell <campbell+netbsd-tech-kern%mumble.net@localhost>]

   Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2016 07:06:37 +1000
   from: matthew green <mrg%eterna.com.au@localhost>

   Taylor R Campbell writes:
   > I'm actually a little puzzled by all that.  Why doesn't ipf just
   > define its own provider?  ipf appears to be the only use of the sdt
   > provider.  I'd sooner get rid of DTRACE_PROBE* altogether and just
   > adapt ipf to use its own provider.  But I have no objection if you'd
   > rather just add an SDT_PROVIDER_DEFINE(sdt).

   i assume this was because ipf was ported to solaris and solaris
   provides a (generic?) "sdt" provider, not that it has been ported
   to netbsd dtrace in any way.

If it's for Solaris compatibility, then maybe it is worthwhile to have
an `sdt' provider so that we might expect to get more useful D scripts
from the Solaris world.  (But that's something Someone^TM needs to
actively work on, which evidently at least I haven't had the
activation energy for.)