Re: [Crash-utility] Thoughts on swap_usage Crash extension?

Hi Bryn, Thanks for the feedback. I'll work on it. With regards to the name change, I think it's worth changing it to 'pswap'. Cheers, Aaron ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bryn M. Reeves" <bmr(a)redhat.com&gt; To: "Discussion list for crash utility usage, maintenance and development" <crash-utility(a)redhat.com&gt; Cc: "Aaron Tomlin" <atomlin(a)redhat.com&gt; Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 1:51:35 PM Subject: Re: [Crash-utility] Thoughts on swap_usage Crash extension? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 01/30/2013 01:17 PM, Aaron Tomlin wrote: > I've made some changes [1] and included the help page, as per your > request. It's still x86_64 specific for now. What do you think? > [1]: > https://github.com/aktlin115/crash-extension/blob/master/swap_usage.c Hi > Aaron, Extension looks useful. I was wondering about the name - would you consider renaming it as 'pswap'? It's less to type than swap_usage (as there's already a 'swap' command but nothing 'psw*'). For the _PAGE_FILE problem it might be possible to address this by providing a wrapper like the pte_file() interface defined by arch headers in the kernel sources. There seem to be 11 arches (inc. x86 and powerpc) using (pte_val(pte) & _PAGE_FILE) idiom. Of the rest s390 has a well-commented explanation of its special cases and ARM uses a different name for the bit: #define pte_file(pte) (pte_val(pte) & L_PTE_FILE) It seems like these could all be handled quite reasonably (actually the number that are identical maybe it's the case that this could be tidied up in the kernel so that arches that really need custom versions can override pte_file() but that's not really my area). Regards, Bryn. -- Crash-utility mailing list Crash-utility(a)redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/crash-utility