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. Jan
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature