Re: [Crash-utility] [PATCH]: minimal mode extensions

Hi again, On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 3:28 PM, Dave Anderson <anderson(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ----- >> Hi all, >> >> How do you feel about allowing minimal mode in extensions? See >> attached patch. >> >> Regards, >> Per > > Seems reasonable enough -- and I'm sure you've got good reasons for > having minimal-mode extension modules. > > But since you're opening the door to all extension modules, I have > a few additional suggestions. Modify the register_extension() and > load_extension() functions such that: > > (1) if in minimal mode, and an extension module doesn't have any > MINIMAL commands, reject the module outright, failing > in a similar manner to the DUPLICATE_COMMAND_NAME error. > > (2) if in minimal mode, and an extension module has multiple > commands > where some are MINIMAL but others are not, maybe print a > warning > message for the commands that are not MINIMAL? > > And then document the MINIMAL flag in this part of the "extend" > help page: > > crash> help extend > ... > command, and during command failures. The flags field > currently has one > available bit setting, REFRESH_TASK_TABLE, which should be set > if it is > preferable to reload the current set of running processes just > prior to > executing the command (on a live system). Terminate the array > of > command_table_entry structures with an entry with a NULL > command name. > ... > > Make sense? Does to me. New patch attached. /Per