----- Original Message ----- > > Dave, the excluding vmemmap obviously affect a user's investigation, > is this really acceptable for you ? > > There is no chance to re-capture the same dump image, > I think we should be more carefully about filtering out > since it's an irreversible change. > How many users want to get such a broken dump image even if > it could be gotten faster ? > > Why we capture dump images, it's for analyzing, of course. > At least, we should supply alternatives to the affected commands. > > Thanks > Atsushi Kumagai No, I don't like this at all. That is why I immediately objected to doing the exclusion by default based upon memory size. But I understand Cliff's request. I also don't think too much of the eraseinfo/eppic capability either, but I understand why it's considered necessary. And so if you do accept it as a feature, I want the up-front warning message crash utility message to explicitly state that the page-exclusion is as a direct result of user/administrator actions. Perhaps the warning message should also indicate that the new "makedumpfile -x" option (I forget the option letter) was used. At least then the end-user will have somebody to "blame", and will not consider it a problem with the tools that were used. And I absolutely do not want the crash source code sprinkled with a bunch of alternative code paths to handle what will be a very rarely-used option. Thanks, Dave -- Crash-utility mailing list Crash-utility@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/crash-utility