Hi,
Robin Holt wrote:
>>>Can you make this a little more transparent? Having a magic bitmask does
>>>not seem like the best way to do stuff. Could you maybe make a core_flags
>>>directory with a seperate file for each flag. It could still map to a
>>>single field in the mm, but be broken out for the proc filesystem.
>>
>>It seems to be one of the good enhancement idea, thanks.:-)
>>But currently, there is only one flag. So we had better keep this simple
>>implementation until someone requests to add a new flag.
>
> If that is the case, can we rename the file from core_flags to something
> more descriptive like dump_core_skip_anonymous_mappings. The name
> is a wild suggestion, the renaming does seem fairly important to me.
> Remember once you get this in, changing the name will be fairly difficult
> as admin tools and documentation will adopt the name. These are usually
> cases where it is better to do it right the first time.
Okay, I'll adopt your idea in the next version.
I'm going to provide the proc entry as follows:
(1) /proc/<pid>/core_flags/flags
(2) /proc/<pid>/core_flags/omit_anon_shared
(1) is the same as current core_flags. It is for expert users.
(2) corresponds to one bit in (1).
If (2) is set to 1, anonymous shared memory of the process is never
dumped.
Thanks,
--
Hidehiro Kawai
Hitachi, Ltd., Systems Development Laboratory
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
