From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MLeh6-0001qB-BM for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 10:52:24 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MLeh0-0001cU-Dc for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 10:52:22 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=35820 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MLegz-0001bq-9x for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 10:52:17 -0400 Received: from mx20.gnu.org ([199.232.41.8]:24601) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MLegy-0000zg-O2 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 10:52:16 -0400 Received: from mail.codesourcery.com ([65.74.133.4]) by mx20.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MLegx-0005nP-EZ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 10:52:15 -0400 From: Paul Brook Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 3/5] linux-user: do not avoid dumping of qemu itself Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:52:12 +0100 References: <14dcb210bb69620dd6a6912c66827da3aba4784c.1246370192.git.riku.voipio@iki.fi> In-Reply-To: <14dcb210bb69620dd6a6912c66827da3aba4784c.1246370192.git.riku.voipio@iki.fi> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200906301552.12732.paul@codesourcery.com> List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org Cc: riku.voipio@iki.fi On Tuesday 30 June 2009, riku.voipio@iki.fi wrote: > From: Riku Voipio > > Previously we disabled dumping of qemu itself if we already > created coredump of the target process. This broke the abort01 > LTP test and any application that used WCOREDUMP to find out > the child process dumped core. Remove this feature. Isn't this going to overwrite the guest core dump we just wrote? It sounds like WCOREDUMP is one of those things that just isn't going to work. i.e. we have to just accept the limitation and xfail the test. Paul