Re: [Crash-utility] [PATCH] Improve error handling when architecture doesn't match

Bernhard Walle wrote: > * Dave Anderson <anderson(a)redhat.com&gt; [2007-12-21 15:00]: > >> I like the addition of the machine-type verification error message. >> >> But why bother with the endian check? Using your ppc64/x86_64 >> example, an architecture check/error message would make far >> more sense. The "endianness" error message implies that if >> they re-compiled their ppc64 kernel little-endian that things >> would work. > > > I added it because if the dump is BE (like PPC64) then the > elf64->e_type == ET_CORE check (also with ELF32) is always false and > the code never got into the switch that checks the machine type. I don't follow -- the e_type is not ET_CORE?