Re: strace only one child process
- From: phil-news-nospam@xxxxxxxx
- Date: 21 Oct 2006 23:40:15 GMT
On 21 Oct 2006 03:35:52 -0700 tmp123 <tmp123@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
| About modify "strace", it is a posibility. I should evaluate the
| necessary effort. The idea will be add to the "-f" option an optional
| numerical argument: maximum number of childs to follow.
I would suggest integrating it with the -e option, allowing _any_ kind
of specifiable event to be counted to determine when to stop tracing
that event or to stop strace altogether. Then while you would be using
it to count a maximum of fork() calls, someone else might find value in
stopping tracing after some number of open() calls.
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / spamtrap-2006-10-21-1837@xxxxxxxx |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: strace only one child process
- From: tmp123
- Re: strace only one child process
- References:
- strace only one child process
- From: tmp123
- Re: strace only one child process
- From: John Reiser
- Re: strace only one child process
- From: phil-news-nospam
- Re: strace only one child process
- From: John Reiser
- Re: strace only one child process
- From: phil-news-nospam
- Re: strace only one child process
- From: tmp123
- strace only one child process
- Prev by Date: Re: boot loader that can read from partition?
- Next by Date: Re: Writing a Linux installer?
- Previous by thread: Re: strace only one child process
- Next by thread: Re: strace only one child process
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|