On 2011-10-10 08:59, Wen Congyang wrote: > 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?
That you explain why reading reading memory and processor states via the remote gdb interface and dumping it into a proper core file cannot be made working for you. Jan
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
