* Dave Anderson <anderson@xxxxxxxxxx> [2007-12-21 15:42]: > 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? Yeah. Thanks, Bernhard -- Crash-utility mailing list Crash-utility@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/crash-utility
