On Tue, 2010-02-16 at 11:34 +0100, Michael Holzheu wrote:
> Dave,
>
> On Mon, 2010-02-15 at 16:56 -0500, Dave Anderson wrote:
> > ----- "Michael Holzheu" <holzheu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > Sorry, I did not read your note carefully. If you want to do that then
> > > my current implementation is wrong. The problem is that now I expect ELF
> > > note structures and will always do. It is not possible to support
> > > multiple dump formats with my current approach.
> >
> > Sure it's possible. In the (unlikely) case s390x ever needs to support anything
> > else, the first int argument can be made a uniquely-identifiable "command"
> > or some such.
>
> First of all: It is VERY likely that we will support a new dump format
> in the near future. Believe me.
>
> Second, how should that work? The callback has an integer and a void
> pointer. The integer is currently used to specify the CPU number. The
> void pointer is used to hold the ELF note information. How the hell can
> I code the information for a new dump format. Or am I missing something?
What we could do is to add a third parameter e.g. an enum that indicates
the dump format.
enum crash_dump_fmt {
DUMP_FMT_ELF,
DUMP_FMT_KDUMP,
...
Michael
--
Crash-utility mailing list
Crash-utility@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/crash-utility
