[PATCH v2 6/8] makedumpfile: Read and process 'for' command from config file.
Mahesh Jagannath Salgaonkar
mahesh at linux.vnet.ibm.com
Wed Sep 7 07:14:06 EDT 2011
On 09/07/2011 12:11 PM, Ken'ichi Ohmichi wrote:
> Hi Mahesh,
> On Mon, 5 Sep 2011 20:10:33 +0530
> Mahesh J Salgaonkar <mahesh at linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>>>> This patch fixes following BUGs:
>>>> - The loop construct used for array of char* (pointer) silently fails and
>>>> does not filter the strings.
>>> Did the silent failure happen at the following code of list_entry_empty() ?
>>> 7373 addr = get_config_symbol_addr(le, 0, NULL);
>>> 7374 if (!addr)
>>> 7375 return TRUE;
>> Nope. It use to fail in resolve_list_entry()->resolve_config_entry()
>> and following hunk from the patch fixes it:
>>We dont allow no-array
>> @@ -6866,7 +6882,7 @@ resolve_config_entry(struct config_entry *ce, unsigned long long base_addr,
>> * If this is a struct or list_head data type then
>> * create a leaf node entry with 'next' member.
>> - if ((ce->type_flag & TYPE_BASE)
>> + if (((ce->type_flag & (TYPE_BASE | TYPE_ARRAY)) == TYPE_BASE)
>> && (strcmp(ce->type_name, "void")))
>> return FALSE;
>> The old code use to check only TYPE_BASE flag ignoring TYPE_ARRAY flag.
> Thank you for the explanation.
> I feel I see it.
> Is the below understanding right ?
> At the part of earlier resolve_config_entry(), necessary information
> (sym_addr, type_name, and array_length) can be gotten in the case
> of pointer array.
Yes, including the size information for type of element (type_name) in
the LIST entry.
> However, the old resolve_config_entry() returned FALSE because of
> the check lack you said.
Yes. The old resolve_config_entry() use to return FALSE only for array
of base type elements (e.g. array of char, int, long etc.). However, it
was working well for array of structures (pointer/non-pointer).
The LIST entry can be of one of the following kind:
1. Array of base types (pointer/non-pointer).
2. Array of structures (pointer/non-pointer).
3. Link list.
4. list_head link list.
The old code was working for all of the above except (1).
More information about the kexec