I wonder if it can be useful to decide on a common "format", that
can be useful in the future for automatic error analysis. E.g:
"[PID %d ERR %d]: .....", for error with a specific task, and
"[PID %d ERR %d OBJ %d]: ......" for error with an object, and so on.
Or even a bit more fancy, like:
ckpt_write_err("EO", "error message %p blah", err, obj, ptr);
SPEC FMT VARS...
Which ckpt_write_err() will translate to
sprintf(s, "[PID %d ERR %d] FMT", VARS...);
So the SPEC "EO" (stands for ERR, OBJ) becomes "[PID %d ERR %d OBJ %d]: "
(pid is mandatory, the rest requested by the caller):
E -> ERR %d
O -> OBJ %d
P -> PTR %p
S -> SYM %pS
etc...
?
Oren.
Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> The main point is for new-comers to the checkpoint/restart tree to
> be able to help us debug their otherwise mysterious checkpoint failures.
>
> Signed-off-by: Serge E. Hallyn <[email protected]>
> ---
> checkpoint/checkpoint.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> checkpoint/files.c | 37 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
> checkpoint/memory.c | 17 ++++++++++++++---
> 3 files changed, 67 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>
[...]
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
