At 10/10/2011 02:52 PM, Jan Kiszka Write: > On 2011-10-10 04:21, Wen Congyang wrote: >> At 10/09/2011 06:23 PM, Richard W.M. Jones Write: >>> On Sun, Oct 09, 2011 at 10:49:57AM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: >>>> As explained in the other replies: It is way more future-proof to use an >>>> interface for this which was designed for it (remote gdb) instead of >>>> artificially relaxing reasonable constraints of the migration mechanism >>>> plus having to follow that format with the post-processing tool. >>> >>> Any interface that isn't "get this information off my production >>> server *now*" so that I can get the server restarted, and send it to >>> an expert to analyse -- is a poor interface, whether it was designed >>> like that or not. Perhaps we don't have the right interface at all, >>> but remote gdb is not it. >> >> What about the following idea? >> >> Introduce a new monitor command named dump, and this command accepts a >> filename. >> We can use almost all migration's code. We use this command to dump guest's >> memory, so there is no need to check whether the guest has a unmigratable >> device. > > I do not want to reject this proposal categorically, but I would like to > see the gdb path fail /wrt essential requirements first. So far I don't > see it would.
‘gdb path fail /wrt essential requirements’ what does it mean? Thanks Wen Congyang > > Jan >
