Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 13 Jul 2006 14:43:16 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: utrace vs. ptrace |
| |
* Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de> wrote:
> On Thursday 13 July 2006 11:24, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote: > > > utrace enables something like 'transparent live debugging': an app > > > crashes in your distro, a window pops up, and you can 'hand over' a > > > debugging session to a developer you trust. Or you can instruct the > > > system to generate a coredump. Or you can generate a shorter summary > > > of the crash, sent to a central site. > > > > not to mention that utrace could be used to move most of the ELF > > coredumping code out of the kernel. (the moment you have access to all > > crashed threads userspace can construct its own coredump - instead of > > having the kernel construct a coredump file) Roland's patch does not go > > as far yet, but it could be a possible target. > > I'm not sure that's particularly useful (I think I would prefer to > keep it in kernel), [...]
why would we want to keep this in the kernel? Coredumping in the kernel is fragile, and it's nowhere near performance-critical to really live within the kernel.
Ingo - 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/
| |