What about replacing that fprintf() with fprintf(pc->saved_fp, "%s",
buf) or even fputs(buf, pc->saved_fp)?
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 2:55 PM, Dave Anderson <anderson(a)redhat.com> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
> On Thu, 2012-08-09 at 16:23 -0600, Bob Montgomery wrote:
> > If you change the
> > fprintf(pc->saved_fp, buf);
> > lines to
> > print_verbatim(pc->saved_fp, buf);
> >
> > Then I won't get:
> >
> > crash> sk_buff.head ffff88012014dc80
> > Segmentation fault
> >
> > When I need to get:
> >
> > crash> sk_buff.head ffff88012014dc80
> > head = 0xffff880121267000 "\"%s %s %s\", got type
\"%s\""
> >
> >
> > Patch attached (6.0.8).
> >
> > I suspect performance will suffer a bit when I try to print
> > 2 million of these...
>
> Wonder if it would be quicker on average to string search for "%" and
> conditionally call print_verbatim??? I had lots of successful
> fprintf's and only a small number of seg viol cases.
>
> Bob M.
Hi Bob,
Although in practice,
(1) parse_for_member() is rarely called "in quantity", and
(2) when it is called, it would only encounter this with "char *" members,
and
(3) the string would also have to have a '%' in it.
On the other hand, if you test the two print-types with a million calls,
there's a significant performance hit. But if a strstr() is done first
on the string, there's virtually no hit at all if there's no '%' in it.
So yes, I agree with you that the string-search/conditional call should be done.
I'll add that to your patch, and queue it for crash-6.0.9.
Thanks,
Dave
--
Crash-utility mailing list
Crash-utility(a)redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/crash-utility