>Alan et. all,
>
>The attached patch adds an option to the build to have core files named
>core.processname, but defaulting to the current behaviour of course.
>For most people the single 'core' file is sufficient, but when the sky
>is falling, it's nice to have more places for it to land. :)
>So, is this something that might go into the kernel, or are their
>philisophical reasons against it? (The patch is against 2.2.19. I
>haven't looked at 2.4.x yet. Let me know if you want a 2.4 or if I
>should send it to Linus, or...)
>
>Questions, comments, etc. welcome,
>
Other Unix' have used core.pid as the name. Wouldn't this be better?
Especially when the process name is already stored in a core file
(`file core` will give you this). Hmm I wonder could we use this
core.pid format to dump the core for each thread (probably a bad idea).
Padraig.
-
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/