----- Original Message -----
> Hi,
>
> I think the behaviour of the (undocumented) "list -h" command is hardly
> useful. I believe the intention was to cover cases like struct anon_vma, which
> is linked through a list_head (not at the beginning of the structure) and does
> not have an external struct list_head. However, it doesn't work for that case:
>
> crash> struct -o anon_vma
> struct anon_vma {
> [0x0] struct anon_vma *root;
> [0x4] spinlock_t lock;
> [0x8] atomic_t external_refcount;
> [0xc] struct list_head head;
> }
>
> Now, let's have an anon_vma at 0xf0749d38
> crash> anon_vma 0xf0749d38
> struct anon_vma {
> root = 0xf0749d38,
> /* left out for brevity */
> head = {
> next = 0xf6c34708,
> prev = 0xf6c34d80
> }
> }
>
> I would assume that I can walk all linked anon_vma's with
>
> list -o anon_vma.head -h 0xf0749d38
>
> But that still expects a pointer to struct list_head. I would have to do
>
> list -o anon_vma.head -h 0xf0749d38+0xc
>
> That's awkward. But maybe it's how it should work, because it's not clear what
> the "-h" should be doing.
>
> Anyway, I think the "list" command could help with walking the anon_vma list.
> I can surely add another option letter for that purpose, but before doing
> that, I'd like to ask if this is merely missing documentation and a bug in the
> implemenatation of the existing "-h" option.
>
> Thanks for your patience,
> Petr Tesarik
To be honest with you, I don't recall what I had in mind, nor what I was
working on when I added it, but given that it was never advertised, it
wasn't meant for prime time.
So by all means, you can try to coerce -h into working as you expected.
Thanks,
Dave
--
Crash-utility mailing list
Crash-utility@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/crash-utility
