Re: systemtap networking tapsets was: Re: [RFC]: field name identifier conventions

[Gerrit Renker <gerrit@erg.abdn.ac.uk>]

|  > |  perhaps one that could understand types and then could allow developers
|  > |  to ask questions like "show me all the places where the field foo of
|  > |  type bar appears"
|  > Hopefully in the next generation of such things may be possible? I was
                                        ^
                                        |
Indeed! Did you notice the missing word +    ... I meant to write `dwarves' :)
and wrote `next generation' since there are apparently already 7 in this generation.


|  Ah, I'm working on some systemtap tapsets, i.e. libraries of probe
|  routines, for networking, starting with TCP, but organized in a way
|  that can be easily used with DCCP and other net protocols too.
If you could give a shout on the mailing list once it is ready for testing/deployment,
that would be good. Last year you had a nice tool which automatically inserted kprobes
at entry/exit points, it was apparently meant to replace an older tool. I tried it a
few times but then lost track of the revisions. It is frustrating to test stuff which is
in the middle of a migration to something else.

The output looks great and once that is ready, I think it can be of much help to answer
long pending questions of e.g. how well the packet scheduler really works.

  
|  And will probably convert net/dccp/dccpprobe.c and tcpprobe to be
|  just systemtap scripts and not part of the build process, etc.
I think that dccpprobe.c is the wrong name ... it should really be called ccid3_probe.c ...
I have been working on printing entries for CCID2, since in ccid2.c there is no probe support,
and instead ccid2_pr_debug is used for the same purpose all over the place.