Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 15 Feb 2002 13:22:18 +0100 | From | Martin Dalecki <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Core dump file control |
| |
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/
| |