* Troy Heber <troy.heber@xxxxxx> [2007-05-02 18:56]: > On 05/02/07 17:58, Bernhard Walle wrote: > > That was no IA64 machine. It was x86_64 and 2.6.5. (In fact, the patch > > doesn't retrieve the registers on IA64 for the stack pointer.) > > Sorry, I should have broken the paragraph there, it was more of a > assertion that IA64 is fine, i.e. no reason to change. Ok. Actually, the patch doesn't change the behaviour on IA64, it just refactores it because of the x86_64 change. > > Why do we need to guess the registers if we really *have* it in the > > dump? What's wrong with the general idea to fetch the dump header > > and to use that information? > > To address all of Dave's concerns with the submitted patch. It was > simply a question of, if there is a simple workaround can we just use > that instead to minimize the changes. I didn't mean to imply that > accessing the arch specific dump header was bad idea, it's just that > its arch specific and requires a rather large patch. I'll take a look if I can fix the problem with a workaround. Give me a few days to find time ... ;-) Thanks, Bernhard -- Crash-utility mailing list Crash-utility@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/crash-utility
