From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 26 Sep 2001 07:35:32 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 26 Sep 2001 07:35:23 -0400 Received: from eventhorizon.antefacto.net ([193.120.245.3]:56781 "EHLO eventhorizon.antefacto.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 26 Sep 2001 07:35:03 -0400 Message-ID: <3BB1BC51.4070102@antefacto.com> Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 12:30:25 +0100 From: Padraig Brady User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20010913 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eli Carter CC: Alan Cox , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] core file naming option In-Reply-To: <3BB104A9.3AD512A5@inet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Eli Carter wrote: >Alan et. all, > >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, > Other Unix' have used core.pid as the name. Wouldn't this be better? Especially when the process name is already stored in a core file (`file core` will give you this). Hmm I wonder could we use this core.pid format to dump the core for each thread (probably a bad idea). Padraig.