At 2012-1-10 21:54, Dave Anderson wrote:
----- Original Message -----
Hello Dave,
Glad to hear the capability is desirable. I will start to implement this
soon.
What if I change struct sub-command to this:
1. it can refer to anonymous members (e.g., page._mapcount)
2. it can refer to submembers(e.g., page._count.counter)
One other suggestion -- I believe it should not be necessary to
support the "page._count.counter" format, because you can get
the data by using the container name. Taking the "_count.counter"
example:
crash> p ((struct page *)0xffffea0000000200)._count.counter
$10 = 0
crash> p ((struct page *)0xffffea0000000200)._count
$11 = {
counter = 0
}
crash>
So using "page._count" should suffice.
Thanks,
Dave
--
Crash-utility mailing list
Crash-utility@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/crash-utility
Hello Dave,
Sorry for reacting late. I have started to realize these item we talked
before. But, considering your mail about "page._count.counter" format, I
need to explain my opinion to you. Trying to support the
"page._count.counter" format is used to help implementing the formatted
output like:
crash> struct page.flags,_count.counter -.. < PAGE_list.txt
1024 0
1024 1
1024 1
1024 1
Compared with "p ((struct page *)0xffffea0000000200)._count.counter",
which can only display only one data each time, the former style can be
more helpful when parsing the output.
The reason why I want the "page._count.counter" format is I want to
offer an efficient way to collect a lot of data. Then I'd like you to
give some comments. Thanks.
--
--
Regards
Qiao Nuohan
--
Crash-utility mailing list
Crash-utility@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/crash-utility
