On Monday, August 25, 2014 09:21:48 AM Eric van Gyzen wrote: > On 08/24/2014 19:53, John-Mark Gurney wrote: > > Eric van Gyzen wrote this message on Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 15:26 -0400: > >> On 08/22/2014 15:20, John-Mark Gurney wrote: > >>> Eric van Gyzen wrote this message on Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 15:16 -0400: > >>>> What behavior would you expect from this sequence of commands? > >>>> > >>>> ktrace -tw -p 1234 > >>>> ktrace -c -p 1234 > >>>> > >>>> Based on this... > >>>> > >>>> -c Clear the trace points associated with the specified file > >>>> > >>>> or processes. > >>> > >>> and/or just add specified: > >>> Clear the specified trace points ... > >> > >> But what if I didn't specify them? > > > > You specified the default by not specificly specifing any different > > ones.. :) Confused? :) > > Amused. :) Adding "specified" is the first thing that came to my mind as well. > > or maybe selected? > > Perhaps, but I didn't select them, either. My original suggestion is > more--dare I use this word again--specific. It explains exactly how the > command behaves. But then do we need to annotate every place that uses "trace points" to add this language? Note that the 'command' description uses the language John- mark suggested: command Execute command with the specified trace flags. My vote would be to add "specified" to the description of "-c", but to improve the the description of "-t" itself from: -t trstr The string argument represents the kernel trace points, one per letter. The following table equates the letters with the trace- points: to: -t trstr Specify the list of trace points to enable or disable, one per letter. If an explicit list is not specified, the default set of trace points is used. The following trace points are supported: -- John BaldwinReceived on Tue Aug 26 2014 - 01:07:39 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:51 UTC