Re: missing SDT_PROVIDER_DEFINE(sdt)

[Kengo NAKAHARA <k-nakahara%iij.ad.jp@localhost>]

Hi,

Thank you for comments.

On 2016/04/04 11:59, Taylor R Campbell wrote:
>    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.)

I agree ipf should define own provider. But, I'm sorry to have no
enough time to fix it appropriately. I just want to let some headers
include sys/sdt.h and compile GENERIC kernel...

So, I just add SDT_PROVIER_DEFINE(sdt) to help Someone's future works.


Thanks,

-- 
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Internet Initiative Japan Inc.

Device Engineering Section,
IoT Platform Development Department,
Network Division,
Technology Unit

Kengo NAKAHARA <k-nakahara%iij.ad.jp@localhost>