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 15:25]: > >> 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. Won't that also affect the e_machine, e_version, e_phnum fields as well?