Re: [uml-devel] Re: [ann] kraxel's 2.6.8 uml patch kit

["D. Bahi" <dbahi@enterasys.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1239 bytes --]

actually it's worse than that in my current implementation:

static int panic_coreonpanic(struct notifier_block *self, unsigned long 
unused1,
                 void *unused2)
{
    if ( uml_coreonpanic ) {
        /* cleanup so we have less to cleanup [linux] on the host */
        /* could panic in uml_cleanup though so we need a check */
        if ( uml_exitcode++ < 1 ) {
            uml_cleanup();
        }
        /* to prevent keyboard from causing terminal to spew during dump */
        block_signals();
        abort();
    }
    return(0);
}


Gerd Knorr wrote:

>>I liked this too. Here's a pass at it if you like (attached).
>>    
>>
>
>Sorry for the delay, going over this while being busy updating my
>patches right now ...
>
>  
>
>>+static int panic_coreonpanic(struct notifier_block *self, unsigned long unused1,
>>+			     void *unused2)
>>+{
>>+	if(uml_coreonpanic){
>>+		uml_cleanup();
>>+		block_signals();
>>+		abort();
>>    
>>
>
>What is the point of doing that?  I'd just let it dump core without any
>cleanups, to get the state of the uml kernel dumped to the disk with few
>modifications as possible.  Any changes might make the analysis of the
>crash harder or even impossible.
>
>  Gerd
>
>  
>

-- 
db


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 187 bytes --]