From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from tyo202.gate.nec.co.jp ([202.32.8.206]) by canuck.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1Ht06Q-0007nd-KD for kexec@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 29 May 2007 07:43:05 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] [makedumpfile] Follow debuginfo link of vmlinux file In-reply-to: <4655C9B3.7060903@sgi.com> Message-Id: <20070529204311oomichi@mail.jp.nec.com> References: <4655C9B3.7060903@sgi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 From: "Ken'ichi Ohmichi" Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 20:43:11 +0900 List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: kexec-bounces@lists.infradead.org Errors-To: kexec-bounces+dwmw2=infradead.org+dwmw2=infradead.org@lists.infradead.org To: Jay Lan Cc: kexec@lists.infradead.org, Bernhard Walle , Dave Anderson Hi Jay, Sorry for the late response. 2007/05/24 12:44:26 -0700, Jay Lan wrote: >Bernhard Walle wrote: >> Hello, >> >> * Dave Anderson [2007-05-24 20:31]: >>> The crash utility hides the details of there being a separate debug >>> file in the same way the gdb does when working with a binary executable >>> that has a separate debuginfo file. It tries *not* to be ambiguous, >>> i.e., the point is to stay true to the "crash vmlinux vmcore" model. >> >> It's documented in the GDB documentation: >> http://sourceware.org/gdb/current/onlinedocs/gdb_16.html#SEC154 > >Thanks for the pointer, Bernhard. I installed kernel-debuginfo rpm >but crash still failed to find the debug information... I had to >copy the kernel-.debug to /boot for it to work. > >So, i think it is a good idea for makedumpfile to follow the same >convension as crash and gdb, Ken'ichi? No, I don't think it is worthy that a kernel file is specified *only* for getting the path to a debuginfo file. It is smart to specify a debuginfo file directly. The crash utility needs both a kernel file and a debuginfo file, but makedumpfile needs only a debuginfo file as I said. BTW, I recommend using a makedumpfile's CONFIGFILE instead of a debuginfo file. If a system has a CONFIGFILE, makedumpfile can run without a debuginfo file. It is smaller than a debuginfo file, and it is easy to distribute it to each system. I don't think each system should have a debuginfo file, because the file is big and a user may analyze a dumpfile on a remote analysis system. Thanks Ken'ichi Ohmichi _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec