bill davidsen wrote:
> In article <3BB104A9.3AD512A5@inet.com>,
> Eli Carter <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> | The attached patch adds an option to the build to have core files named
> | core.processname, but defaulting to the current behaviour of course.
> | For most people the single 'core' file is sufficient, but when the sky
> | is falling, it's nice to have more places for it to land. :)
> | So, is this something that might go into the kernel, or are their
> | philisophical reasons against it? (The patch is against 2.2.19. I
> | haven't looked at 2.4.x yet. Let me know if you want a 2.4 or if I
> | should send it to Linus, or...)
> | Questions, comments, etc. welcome,
> Since you asked for it... ;-)
> While you're adding this feature, and it seems others are adding
> similar things, it is *highly* desirable to allow the build to put all
> the dumps in one place of desired (my first thought is /var/core) so
> that if you get a lot you won't run the system out of disk.
> The directory name could be set in /proc/sys/coredir (or somesuch)
> with an initial value of "." of course.
> Other than that I like the idea, although process "name" could get a
> lot of clashes on threads, and pid gets reused. There may be a better
> idea, but most of mine are cumbersome. This would really simplify
> certain kinds of dump analysis.
I can see that those would be good improvements... but core.name is what
I can do (and get the time to do,) right now.
--------------------. Real Users find the one combination of bizarre
Eli Carter \ input values that shuts down the system for days.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to email@example.com
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Sep 30 2001 - 21:00:56 EST