Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 03:28:18 +0300 From: Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@ceid.upatras.gr> To: Chad David <davidc@acns.ab.ca> Cc: current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: savecore Message-ID: <20020420002817.GD1464@hades.hell.gr> In-Reply-To: <20020419003134.A54078@colnta.acns.ab.ca> References: <20020419003134.A54078@colnta.acns.ab.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2002-04-19 00:31, Chad David wrote:
> Any comments / objections to these patches to savecore and friends?
Since you asked ... :)
> Index: savecore.8
> ===================================================================
> +The
> +.Nm savecore
You can safely remove "savecore" from the .Nm arguments,
since the macro will add it when given no arguments.
(This occurs in several places below, too.)
> +Print additional debugging information, including the details of the dump
> +header to stdout.
The following sounds a tiny bit better:
+Print additional debugging information to standard output,
+including the details of the dump header.
> +The
> +.Nm savecore
> +command attempts to verify that a core image is valid by verifying it's
> +header (magic number and version etc.).
"its header". No apostrophe.
You might also like to drop "and" in
"(magic number, version, etc.)."
> The ``#'' is the number from the first line of the file
> .Ar directory Ns Pa /bounds ,
> -and it is incremented and stored back into the file each time
> -.Nm
> +and is incremented and stored back into the file each time
> +.Nm savecore
> successfully runs.
Breaking the sentences, makes the whole thing easier to understand,
and removes the need for the "and" joining those two parts:
The ``#'' is the number from the first line of the file
.Ar directory Ns Pa /bounds .
It is incremented and stored back into the file each time
.Nm
runs successfully.
> If
> +.Nm savecore
> +successfully saves the core dump, and the
> +.Fl k
> +option is not specific, the dump's header is cleared so that future
s/specific/specified/
> static void
> DoFile(const char *device)
> {
> struct kerneldumpheader kdhf, kdhl;
> - char buf[BUFSIZ];
> + char buf[BUFSIZ * 64];
Is this multiplication really necessary?
Was the original buf[BUFSIZ] size not adequate?
Giorgos Keramidas FreeBSD Documentation Project
keramida@{freebsd.org,ceid.upatras.gr} http://www.FreeBSD.org/docproj/
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020420002817.GD1464>