[Crash-utility] [PATCH]: minimal mode extensions

[Per Fransson]

Hi again,

On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 3:28 PM, Dave Anderson <anderson at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> Hi all,
>>
>> How do you feel about allowing minimal mode in extensions? See
>> attached patch.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Per
>
> Seems reasonable enough -- and I'm sure you've got good reasons for
> having minimal-mode extension modules.
>
> But since you're opening the door to all extension modules, I have
> a few additional suggestions.  Modify the register_extension() and
> load_extension() functions such that:
>
>  (1) if in minimal mode, and an extension module doesn't have any
>      MINIMAL commands, reject the module outright, failing
>      in a similar manner to the DUPLICATE_COMMAND_NAME error.
>
>  (2) if in minimal mode, and an extension module has multiple commands
>      where some are MINIMAL but others are not, maybe print a warning
>      message for the commands that are not MINIMAL?
>
> And then document the MINIMAL flag in this part of the "extend" help page:
>
>   crash> help extend
>   ...
>     command, and during command failures.  The flags field currently has one
>     available bit setting, REFRESH_TASK_TABLE, which should be set if it is
>     preferable to reload the current set of running processes just prior to
>     executing the command (on a live system).  Terminate the array of
>     command_table_entry structures with an entry with a NULL command name.
>   ...
>
> Make sense?

Does to me. New patch attached.

/Per

>
> Dave
>
> --
> Crash-utility mailing list
> Crash-utility at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/crash-utility
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: minimal_extensions_2.patch
Type: text/x-diff
Size: 8176 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/crash-utility/attachments/20130123/760cd717/attachment.bin>