----- Original Message -----
----- Original Message -----
> Hi Dave,
>
> Sorry about the delay. I completely forgot about this one!
> Please note I have only addressed the case when the argument to the
> 'struct' command is not an address:
>
And lastly, the symbol:cpuspec argument to the struct command is meant
to be the address of the structure, not a pointer to the address:
crash> help struct
NAME
struct - structure contents
SYNOPSIS
struct struct_name[.member[,member]][-o][-l offset][-rfuxdp]
[address | symbol][:cpuspec] [count | -c count]
... [ cut ] ...
symbol symbolic reference to the address of a structure.
:cpuspec CPU specification for a per-cpu address or symbol:
: CPU of the currently selected task.
:a[ll] all CPUs.
:#[-#][,...] CPU list(s), e.g. "1,3,5", "1-3",
or "1,3,5-7,10".
...
So I'm worried that if you wanted to see a structure member that actually
is a pointer, then the patch is going to dereference it and print bogus
data.
Hi Aaron,
Given that you are essentially specifying a completely new argument
type to the struct command, I'm going to have to NAK this patch.
To do what you want, honestly I don't really feel that it's asking too much
to make it a two-step process, i.e, get the address first, and then apply it
to the struct command.
However, if you really feel it's worth it, I suppose you could create a
new "indirect-pointer-argument-type" for the struct command that explicitly
specifies that it is a pointer to the target address.
Thanks,
Dave