Hi, 2007/03/21 16:21:57 -0500, Dave Anderson <anderson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >Bob Montgomery wrote: > >> On Tue, 2007-03-20 at 11:18 +0900, Ken'ichi Ohmichi wrote: >> > Hi Bob, >> > >> > Thank you for the great report. >> You are welcome. >> >> Before continuing the discussion of issues with proposed changes to ELF >> dumpfile generation, I'd like to recap where we are and suggest a couple >> of actions. >> >> 1) Makedumpfile patch: Ken'ichi Ohmichi's email of Wed, 7 Mar 2007 >> 10:43:38 +0900 contained the patch "point_same_zero_page.patch". That >> patch contains the nice solution to remove redundant zero page images >> from the diskdump dump file by pointing the page descriptors of zero >> pages to a common zero image. I suggest that this patch should be >> applied to makedumpfile as soon as possible, without waiting on a >> possible solution to the ELF situation. As described in my report, ELF >> and diskdump dump files have not shown identical behavior in the past. >> This patch makes diskdump dump files more accurate, and leaves ELF dump >> files at the same level of accuracy that they have always had. I agree with Bob, I will merge the patch "point_same_zero_page.patch" into a new makedumpfile. But this change is very important, and I want to check that this change is correct by doing many tests. I will release a new makedumpfile until the next weekend. >> With these two patches, crash reports the contents of diskdump dump >> files produced by makedumpfile correctly. Zero content pages that have >> not been excluded for other reasons remain accessible, and pages that >> have really been excluded become inaccessible, instead of showing 0x0 >> contents. Crash should continue to read old dump files as before, >> because of the change in version number in the dumpfiles. >> > >I am a little bit worried that this may cause an >unnecessary abort -- based upon your experience >with my suggestion of returning an error instead >of a zero-filled buffer from the current compressed >diskdump format -- so I may be paranoid. Anyway, >I'll probably put in an "out" so that the user >has the choice of getting a zero-filled buffer >like it does now. I think it is a good idea. Thanks Ken'ichi Ohmichi -- Crash-utility mailing list Crash-utility@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/crash-utility
