Quoting Oren Laadan (orenl@xxxxxxxxxxx):
>
> I wonder if it can be useful to decide on a common "format", that
> can be useful in the future for automatic error analysis. E.g:
>
> "[PID %d ERR %d]: .....", for error with a specific task, and
> "[PID %d ERR %d OBJ %d]: ......" for error with an object, and so on.
>
> Or even a bit more fancy, like:
>
> ckpt_write_err("EO", "error message %p blah", err, obj, ptr);
> SPEC FMT VARS...
>
> Which ckpt_write_err() will translate to
>
> sprintf(s, "[PID %d ERR %d] FMT", VARS...);
>
> So the SPEC "EO" (stands for ERR, OBJ) becomes "[PID %d ERR %d OBJ %d]: "
> (pid is mandatory, the rest requested by the caller):
> E -> ERR %d
> O -> OBJ %d
> P -> PTR %p
> S -> SYM %pS
> etc...
Yes, it'd be useful. BTW it also would be useful to have mktree/
restart auto-detect such error strings and report them.
-serge
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
