Jakob Østergaard wrote:
>On Fri, Feb 15, 2002 at 12:44:42PM +0100, Martin Dalecki wrote:
>
>>Jakob Østergaard wrote:
>>
>...
>
>>>What I want is "core.[process name]" eventually with a ".[pid]" appended. A
>>>flexible scheme like your patch implements is very nice. Actually having
>>>the core files in CWD is fine for me - I mainly care about the file name.
>>>
>>Please execute the size command on the core fiel:
>>
>>size core
>>
>>to see why this isn't needed.
>>
>
>Huh ?
>
>I suppose you mean, that I can get the name of the executable that caused the
>core dump, when running size - right ?
>
>Well, you can do that easier with the file command.
>
>But that doesn't prevent my 7 other processes from overwriting the core file
>of the 8'th process which was the first one to crash. Multi-process systems
>can, on occation, produce such "domino dumps". Separate names is a *must have*.
>
This point I fully agree with. And in fact 2.4.17 already does it the
core.{pid} way.
>And having process names is nicer than having PIDs - I don't mind if my core
>files are over-written on subsequent runs, actually it's nice (keeps the disks
>from filling up).
>
They can get long and annoying... They are not suitable for short name
filesystems... They provide a good
hint for deliberate overwrites.... and so on. Basically I think this
would be too much of the good.
>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 15 2002 - 21:01:07 EST