Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 15:26:17 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> To: Scott Long <scottl@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Should ps -p list threads? Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10402121520080.21070-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com> In-Reply-To: <20040212124357.B21291@pooker.samsco.home>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004, Scott Long wrote: > On Thu, 12 Feb 2004, Daniel Eischen wrote: > > On Thu, 12 Feb 2004, Julian Elischer wrote: > > > > > > The origianlpatch had _H show threads and normal ps did not.. > > > I don't know why this is as it is... > > > > Because it didn't take into account other 'ps' options. Enabling > > or disabling thread info should be an option for all KERN_PROC_foo, > > not a separate option. If I were to change it, I would add > > > > #define KERN_PROC_THREADS 0x10000 > > > > to <sys/sysctl.h>. Then allow: > > > > mib[0] = CTL_KERN; > > mib[1] = KERN_PROC; > > mib[2] = KERN_PROC_UID | KERN_PROC_THREADS; > > mib[3] = pid; > > > > ... > > > > Yeah, it's probably cleaner that way. Still, you'll have to deal with > KERN_PROC_PROC vs. KERN_PROC_ALL. Maybe just remove both and have > KERN_PROC_THREAD be a modifier for KERN_PROC_PID. I was just going to allow them for backward compatibility. Using KERN_PROC_ALL would imply KERN_PROC_THREADS. > Are you > willing to do the kernel work for this too? Preliminary (untested) patch just to show you where I was headed: http://people.freebsd.org/~deischen/kse/sys.diffs.021204 I'll test and debug it, make associated changes in libkvm and ps if you think the idea is OK. -- Dan Eischen
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.10.10402121520080.21070-100000>