-----Original Message----- > >> In addition, might it be more reasonable to issue a warning instead of a > >> fatal error? > > > > hmm, why do you think so? I think FATAL is fine because we cannot proceed > > anymore and there is no memory to be released. > > > When users are trying to use the some commands in crash, crash should give a > warning to users if > it doesn't support the command yet, but users can still use other commands, > the fatal error means > that it can not continue to do anythings. > > Anyway, I have no preference about this. The more important thing is that I > didn't reproduce the > problem that David mentioned(after applied the above patch). Maybe David > could help me give more > details.
ok, I've thought we usually use "WARNING" when it can or have to continue to do something, but there looks to be no strict rule in crash source. Thanks, Kazu -- Crash-utility mailing list Crash-utility@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/crash-utility
