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/
