[The original mail seemed to be stuck in the moderation queue or got lost somewhere else. Reposting with correct "From:" this time]
Am Mittwoch, den 27.08.2008, 17:14 +0900 schrieb Dmitry Timoshkov:
"Markus Hitter" mah@jump-ing.de wrote:
Providing the file handle allows to map read/write requests to the corresponding file name.
As pointed out by Alexander, you can use an appropriate debug channel for that, +relay or +server. There is no need to pollute the source with additional traces.
I am sorry, but I don't get your point. The handle is returned in an out-pointer. There is no way to get that info into +relay. Alexandre said:
| Module-specific traces like this one should try to print as | little information as necessary to make sense of the trace | In general a single trace at function entry is enough to understand | the code flow. I agree, but the handles returned *are* necessary to make sense of the trace. Also, if I just want parameters at the function entry: This information is provided by +relay. In the +file log, I don't care about the address where the handle should be written to, yet it is logged by our tracing conventions. It also doesn't help to understand code flow. Now we are rejecting a patch that logs useful information instead, which is vital to connect further file calls to the NtCreateCall, i.e. understand the flow. I don't understand that.
| If you want details like the exact error codes you can use +relay or | +server. I agree too, but the details about exact error codes have been removed from the patch.
Regards, Michael Karcher