[Crash-utility] [PATCH] Improve error handling when architecture doesn't match
Dave Anderson
anderson at redhat.com
Fri Dec 21 14:25:30 UTC 2007
Bernhard Walle wrote:
> * Dave Anderson <anderson at redhat.com> [2007-12-21 15:00]:
>
>>I like the addition of the machine-type verification error message.
>>
>>But why bother with the endian check? Using your ppc64/x86_64
>>example, an architecture check/error message would make far
>>more sense. The "endianness" error message implies that if
>>they re-compiled their ppc64 kernel little-endian that things
>>would work.
>
>
> I added it because if the dump is BE (like PPC64) then the
> elf64->e_type == ET_CORE check (also with ELF32) is always false and
> the code never got into the switch that checks the machine type.
I don't follow -- the e_type is not ET_CORE?
Dave
More information about the Crash-utility
mailing list