* Dave Anderson <anderson@xxxxxxxxxx> [2007-12-21 15:25]: > Bernhard Walle wrote: >> * Dave Anderson <anderson@xxxxxxxxxx> [2007-12-21 15:00]: >> >>> I like the addition of the machine-type verification error message. >>> >>> But why bother with the endian check? Using your ppc64/x86_64 >>> example, an architecture check/error message would make far >>> more sense. The "endianness" error message implies that if >>> they re-compiled their ppc64 kernel little-endian that things >>> would work. >> >> >> I added it because if the dump is BE (like PPC64) then the >> elf64->e_type == ET_CORE check (also with ELF32) is always false and >> the code never got into the switch that checks the machine type. > > I don't follow -- the e_type is not ET_CORE? Well, it is, but not 0x??04 but 0x04??. But of course, it's also possible to check the byte-toggled value. I'll send a new patch. Thanks, Bernhard -- Crash-utility mailing list Crash-utility@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/crash-utility
