From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Anderson Subject: Re: [PATCH] dump-core: store .xen_p2m or .xen_pfn section in pfn ascending order. Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 08:39:23 -0500 Message-ID: <45F1638A.54659D98@redhat.com> References: <20070309015230.GB999%yamahata@valinux.co.jp> <20070309113129.GK999%yamahata@valinux.co.jp> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Isaku Yamahata Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, Keir Fraser List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Isaku Yamahata wrote: > On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 09:59:40AM +0000, Keir Fraser wrote: > > On 9/3/07 01:52, "Isaku Yamahata" wrote: > > > > > dump-core: store .xen_p2m or .xen_pfn section in pfn ascending order. > > > So far the order isn't specified and may be random in theory. > > > But sorted array is requested by crash utility for efficient looking up. > > > Fortunately it is the case except ia64 full virtualized domain. > > > Update document such that those array must be sorted and fix the ia64 > > > full virtualized domain case. > > > > Put the qsort() in the ia64 code if it's needed at all. > > Moved. > > > But shouldn't it be > > easy to generate the memory-area list in order in the first place? > > Dave, do you have any opinion? > Nope -- pfn-ascending order in the two arrays is all I'm requesting... Thanks, Dave