Re: opcontrol in POSIX sh ... ?

[Paul S. <pa...@ma...>]

On Fri, 2008-10-10 at 18:08 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Paul Smith <pa...@ma...> writes:
> 
> > I don't know of ANY Linux-based environment that provides a shell that
> > is not POSIX compliant (even the Busybox shell, which is what I use,
> > adheres to POSIX sh standards), so it seems to me we can rely on the
> > POSIX features in opcontrol.
> 
> opcontrol is rather fragile (I cannot count how often I ended up
> with corrupted state that could only be fixed up with manual rm -rf), 
> it would be better to just rewrite it properly in C.

I have a natural inclination to prefer scripting to C wherever
reasonable, just because it's so much simpler to maintain/extend/etc.,
but I can't pretend I've spent enough time with oprofile to know where
opcontrol falls on that spectrum.  However, rewriting it in C is more
than I can sign up for at the moment.

I'm happy to harden and portable-ize the shell script, unless a C
rewrite is in the offing such that it's not worthwhile.

Cheers!