Re: OK to add _STRACE_FORK category?

[Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin at cygwin dot com>]

On May  4 15:33, Ryan Johnson wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> I'm currently producing sending quite a bit of information to
> special_printf while forking, and suspect that at least some of it
> would be good to leave in place. Further, I think it would make
> sense to have a fork category for strace so that people trying to
> diagnose fork problems have a way to figure out what's going wrong
> without having to slog through strace's all/debug output:
> 
>         thread   0x040000 (_STRACE_THREAD)   Thread-locking calls.
> +       fork     0x080000 (_STRACE_FORK)     Fork-related information.
>         special  0x100000 (_STRACE_SPECIAL)  Special debugging printfs for
>                                              non-checked-in code
> 
> 
> If folks are all right seeing an _STRACE_FORK appear, I'll add that

I just noticed that I never replied.  Please use sigproc_printf and
debug_printf.  However, fork has already a lot of strace output, so
it would be favorable to keep the number of extra printfs as small
as possible.  Maybe there are even some we should remove.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat