Alex Sidorenko wrote:
As a result, I think that SIAL should be very good for case (1). Using C-like
language makes it easier to map pieces of Linux kernel C-code to a script.
But in case (2) - developing/maintaining complicated automated dump-analysis
suites - using Python should be better, especially for maintenance. OO
really makes maintenance much easier when internal kernel structures change
frequently.
Hi Alex,
Thanks for the detailed mail. I agree with you on the utility of automated
scripts / programs in dump / live system analysis.
The reason behind starting this discussion on crash mailing list was to
get different ideas about having scripting infrastructure in crash.
Such an infrastructure in crash would really be useful [ writing scripts
on the fly or using already existing scripts packaged with crash ]
to extract information from a dump / live system.
I am not advocating for any one particular solution. I am open to any useful
solution. Eventually it's dave's call on which scripting infrastructure
( if any ) would go in crash :-)
Working with changing kernel code the requirement is the ability to easily
change the crash commands to reflect kernel changes. New analysis requirements
arise often, so the ability to quickly write new scripts is also needed.
Thanks
-Sachin
--
Crash-utility mailing list
Crash-utility@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/crash-utility
