Bernhard Walle wrote:
* 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.
Won't that also affect the e_machine, e_version, e_phnum fields
as well?
Dave
--
Crash-utility mailing list
Crash-utility@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/crash-utility
