Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 20 Sep 2002 14:50:34 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] kernel 2.4.19 & 2.5.38 - coredump sysctl |
| |
Michael Sinz wrote: > > ... > > Does it need to be this fancy? Why not just have: > > > > if (core_name_format is unset) > > use "core" > > else > > use core_name_format/nodename-uid-pid-comm.core > > > > which saves all that string format processing, while giving > > people everything they could want? > > Well, it depends on if you really need the complex form or not. > > There are some people who use a format of: > > %N.%P.core > > which places the core file in the current directory but adds in the > name of the program. (Something that is very nice when you have > a lot of programs that may core "together" when something bad happens)
They could use
echo . > /proc/sys/vm/core_path
> The string processing is not that much work anyway (very small) > and, given the fact that I am about to write to disk a core dump, > it can not be a critical path/fast path issue either :-)
True, but it's all more code and I don't believe that it adds much value. It means that people need to run off and find the documentation, then choose a format. Which will be different from other people's chosen formats. Which will make development and testing and installation of downstream scripts harder, etc.
You can give people *all* the options at no cost, and without irritating them, and with less code. So why make it harder for everyone by adding this optionality? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |