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

* Dave Anderson <anderson(a)redhat.com&gt; [2007-12-21 15:25]: >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? Well, it is, but not 0x??04 but 0x04??. But of course, it's also possible to check the byte-toggled value. I'll send a new patch.