Hi! > >>>Can you make this a little more transparent? Having a magic bitmask does > >>>not seem like the best way to do stuff. Could you maybe make a core_flags > >>>directory with a seperate file for each flag. It could still map to a > >>>single field in the mm, but be broken out for the proc filesystem. > >> > >>It seems to be one of the good enhancement idea, thanks.:-) > >>But currently, there is only one flag. So we had better keep this simple > >>implementation until someone requests to add a new flag. > > > > If that is the case, can we rename the file from core_flags to something > > more descriptive like dump_core_skip_anonymous_mappings. The name > > is a wild suggestion, the renaming does seem fairly important to me. > > Remember once you get this in, changing the name will be fairly difficult > > as admin tools and documentation will adopt the name. These are usually > > cases where it is better to do it right the first time. > > Okay, I'll adopt your idea in the next version. > I'm going to provide the proc entry as follows: > > (1) /proc/<pid>/core_flags/flags > (2) /proc/<pid>/core_flags/omit_anon_shared > > (1) is the same as current core_flags. It is for expert users. > (2) corresponds to one bit in (1). > If (2) is set to 1, anonymous shared memory of the process is never > dumped.
Now, that's what I call an ugly interface. Can we simply add ulimit with boolean value, that says dump anon_shared... or not? It will be simpler and faster, because you'll not need locking. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/