Re: [Crash-utility] [PATCH 1/1] Resend CLI list command, print deep structure members

Hi Dave, I'm sorry for my poor Inglish :) > I actually haven't studied the meat of parse_for_member_new() yet, > but in testing the patch, I've come up with a few issues that still > need addressing. Could you please clarify your last point?

> Unlike what you have done for "struct" and "list", when the "task" > command calls task_struct_member(), if *any* of the comma-separated > members are the new complicated format, you set the call_new_parser > flag, so it somewhat defeats the purpose of having the flag at all: > > if (call_new_parser) { > for (i = 0; i < argcnt; i++) { > dm.member = arglist[i]; > parse_for_member_new(&dm, 0); > } > } else { > parse_task_thread(argcnt, arglist, tc); > } If I understood you right, you want the `parse_task_thread` to be called for every simple field and `parse_for_member_new` should be called for complicated format only. That is if you specify line % task -R foo,bar,baz.foo.xxx `parse_task_thread` should be called for `foo` and `bar`, whereas `parse_for_member_new` would be called for `baz.foo.xxx` only. Am I right?

> I still would like the confidence of knowing that the old function > will still be used with the simple "struct.member" format. > > And related to the issue above, here's a bug -- the "task" command > is quite often useful to call from "foreach", where for each task, > the task's banner is displayed followed by the requested data. ... > But when I add a new extended reference, the banner doesn't get displayed, > rendering the command useless: ... I will fix it. > Also, similar to the "list" command, the "tree" command also supports the > "-s struct.member" option: > > crash> help tree > ... [ cut ] ... > > -s struct For each entry in a tree, format and print it as this type > of data > structure; use the "struct.member" format in order to display a > particular member of the structure. To display multiple members > of a structure, use a comma-separated list of members. > > Can you look into putting support there as well? Ok, I will fix it. Thanks, Alexandr