----- Original Message ----- > ----- Original Message ----- > > Hi Dave, > > > > > Sorry about the delay. I completely forgot about this one! > > Please note I have only addressed the case when the argument to the > > 'struct' command is not an address: > > > > And lastly, the symbol:cpuspec argument to the struct command is meant > to be the address of the structure, not a pointer to the address: > > crash> help struct > > NAME > struct - structure contents > > SYNOPSIS > struct struct_name[.member[,member]][-o][-l offset][-rfuxdp] > [address | symbol][:cpuspec] [count | -c count] > > ... [ cut ] ... > > symbol symbolic reference to the address of a structure. > :cpuspec CPU specification for a per-cpu address or symbol: > : CPU of the currently selected task. > :a[ll] all CPUs. > :#[-#][,...] CPU list(s), e.g. "1,3,5", "1-3", > or "1,3,5-7,10". > ... > > So I'm worried that if you wanted to see a structure member that actually > is a pointer, then the patch is going to dereference it and print bogus > data. Hi Aaron, Given that you are essentially specifying a completely new argument type to the struct command, I'm going to have to NAK this patch. To do what you want, honestly I don't really feel that it's asking too much to make it a two-step process, i.e, get the address first, and then apply it to the struct command. However, if you really feel it's worth it, I suppose you could create a new "indirect-pointer-argument-type" for the struct command that explicitly specifies that it is a pointer to the target address. Thanks, Dave -- Crash-utility mailing list Crash-utility@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/crash-utility
