This is the mail archive of the
systemtap@sourceware.org
mailing list for the systemtap project.
Re: stp_exit change
Hi -
hunt wrote:
> [...]
> int get_value() {
> ...
> if (something really bad and unexpected happens) {
> stp_error("bad mojo")
> return 0;
> }
> return val;
> }
> [...]
What are some existing examples of this? How is the caller supposed
to know that something "fatal" occurred if not by rc?
> > On the contrary, I would rather the runtime assume as little as
> > possible about translator code generation patterns.
>
> I think we consistently disagree on this point. [...] there is a
> need for functions that aid in the interface between the two.
It's a question of magnitude, of details.
> For some reason you used to remind me over and over that the runtime
> was supposed to be solely for the use of the translator. [...]
This idea is not contradictory with the other one. The runtime API
needs to serve the translator, but not be dependent on its vagaries,
as far as reasonable and possible. That makes for a more proper
layered design.
> [...] I think an error that is ignored is a warning. Errors are
> always fatal. [...]
Except, as I said, the soft errors are not ignored. They are counted
toward a limit, and they cause an unwinding of the probe script. If
you believe there should be no such thing as a soft error, how exactly
do you propose systemtap handle timed-out locks?
- FChE