On 04/28, Dave Anderson wrote: > > > 1. How the command line should look? > > Well, for the non-live, crashed. version of this dumpfile, it should look > exactly > as the current ramdump MEMORY-IMAGE@ADDRESS implementation, correct?
I agree, the "raw:" prefix/mode doesn't buy too much, lets drop it. > As for the "hybrid-live-dump" version, I'm not sure. So for now I guess you > can > continue using the "live:" prefix to the dumpfile name. If we come up with a > more logical naming scheme in the future, we can always change it later. > > > > > 2. Should I re-use ramdump.c or should I just add the new file which > > re-implements read_ramdump() ? > > Given that these *are* essentially ramdump files, you've convinced me that > ramdump.c > should be used. OK, will try to do tomorrow. > If I had been aware of exactly > what your "/tmp/MEM" file consisted of, and that it exists on the host > machine, I could > have avoided 80% of our back-and-forth emails. I'm really sorry for having > wasted > your time. Heh, it is me who should apologize ;) Looking back it is clear to me I should have mentioned this explicitely. Oleg. -- Crash-utility mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/crash-utility
