Haren Myneni wrote:

crash-utility-bounces@redhat.com wrote on 03/09/2006 12:24:26 PM:
> Dave Anderson wrote:
>
> > Sorry -- I see that NR_CPUS is 128 for ppc64 in crash...
> >
> > But the question remains, do you want to absolutely depend
> > upon that always being the case in the kernel?
> >
> > Dave
>
> Actually, looking again at the paca code, it doesn't seem that
> it is dependent upon the kernel NR_CPUS value.
Dave,
Since, we are iterating on nr_paca, though that it may not be an issue even if the kernel changed NR_CPUS to < 128. The only issue is we are reading NR_CPUS/8 for cpu_online_map - not using the remaining part.
Probably, it will be more clear if you the cpu_online_map size is based on nr_paca.
Like moving the following line after calculated nr_paca:
+ readmem(symbol_value("cpu_online_map"), KVADDR, &cpu_online_map[0],
+ nr_paca/8, "cpu_online_map", FAULT_ON_ERROR);
+
Can I go ahead and change it? - drawback of this approach is if the NR_CPUS in the kernel is greater than 128.

Well, if NR_CPUS goes above 128 in the kernel, then
crash will fail in kernel_init() with:

       if (kt->cpus > NR_CPUS) {
               error(WARNING,
       "calculated number of cpus (%d) greater than compiled-in NR_CPUS (%d)\n",
                       kt->cpus, NR_CPUS);
               error(FATAL, "recompile crash with larger NR_CPUS\n");
       }

so that's not really a problem.

or do you prefer actual allocating the online_map based on nr_paca? I will make changes based on your suggestions.

I don't care either way -- I just want you guys to be happy. ;-)

So just tell me how you want it, i.e., either keep the patch as is,
or send an updated one.

Dave