Messages in this thread | | | From | "Albert D. Cahalan" <> | Subject | Re: core files (was Re: 2.1.131: some quality thoughts) | Date | Mon, 21 Dec 1998 15:43:48 -0500 (EST) |
| |
Horst H. von Brand writes: > "Albert D. Cahalan" <acahalan@cs.uml.edu> said:
>> Long term, I think the whole core file idea needs to be tossed in >> favor of just starting a debugger. > > Obviously also paging the party responsible for the crashed program. Using > some random vt for the task when a daemon crashes, too, I suppose?
If crash handler registered stop the task and notify a registered user-space handler, else dump core.
Crash handlers could be per-UID. They could listen on a device or expect real-time (why call it that?) signals with data attached. They could be full graphical GNOME apps that look up the maintainer in an RPM database and offer to mail a form letter. The process could be kept alive, which is more useful than a core. Someone with a clue would get a chance to start up ddd on a live process, with all the network connections intact.
Core files just aren't likely to generate useful bug reports. Maybe 1% of the time someone submits a proper report.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |