Re: [Crash-utility] [PATCH 1/2] libgcore: fix get notesize calculation
From: Lei Wen <leiwen(a)marvell.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/2] libgcore: fix get notesize calculation
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 01:46:13 -0700
Hi HATAYAMA,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: HATAYAMA Daisuke [mailto:d.hatayama@jp.fujitsu.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 10:45 AM
> To: Lei Wen
> Cc: crash-utility(a)redhat.com
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] libgcore: fix get notesize calculation
>
>
> From: Lei Wen <leiwen(a)marvell.com>
> Subject: [PATCH 1/2] libgcore: fix get notesize calculation
> Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2012 22:44:14 -0800
>
Opps, that is my fault, thanks for correcting.
I'm ok with the change.
I see.
>
> Furthermore, these days I'm beginning with the current design of gcore
> command is too large to maintain. I guess most users of this command
> requires only a small part of the features currently gcore command
> provides. In other words, they are satisfied only with seeing memory
> contents and backtrace using gdb. They don't need acurate restoration
> of register values. For the other direction, porting kernel source
> code directly, such as elf_core_dump() and regset interface, itself
> might be too large. I will perhaps rewrite gcore command entirely
> compactly. Please keep it mind.
Actually we think it is vital to also keep the register set extract out to analyze the
user space application, since combining the registers and assembler code, we could get
full view of what is happening when the fatal signal happens, like what the local variable
content is then. Just backtrace is not enough...
Could we keep such feature?
Yes, I also think there's such requirement. What I want to keep now
are memory part, general registers that are corresponding to
REGSET_GENERAL and core part of NT_PRSTATUS, NT_PRPSINFO and NT_AUXV.
I don't schedule this development and I don't know when I will do
it. So please just keep it mind.
Thanks.
HATAYAMA, Daisuke