From owner-freebsd-current Tue Sep 16 18:38:55 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA03792 for current-outgoing; Tue, 16 Sep 1997 18:38:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zippy.dyn.ml.org (garbanzo@korea-173.ppp.hooked.net [206.169.225.173]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA03782 for ; Tue, 16 Sep 1997 18:38:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (garbanzo@localhost) by zippy.dyn.ml.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA03904 for ; Tue, 16 Sep 1997 18:39:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: zippy.dyn.ml.org: garbanzo owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 18:39:10 -0700 (PDT) From: Alex To: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Does this idea have merit? In-Reply-To: <4836.874182884@critter.freebsd.dk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Sat, 13 Sep 1997, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <199709131739.MAA00426@watcher.isl.net>, Daniel Ortmann writes: > > >On the other hand, maybe I'm missing something basic. Is there > >some other way to find out (without forking a /bin/ps): > > cat /proc/*/status | grep ... ? > > Extending the tree in procfs is not for the faint ... It probably is, but one of the things I liked about Linux was the ability to get loads of information about certian drivers by checking the proc fs. How hard would it be to impliment something like that under procfs or say under something else? - alex