Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 07:37:36 -0500 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: Bob Friesenhahn <bfriesen@simple.dallas.tx.us> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, Kelly Dean <kellydeanch@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: Why is procfs deprecated in favor of procstat? Message-ID: <201102230737.36748.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <alpine.GSO.2.01.1102221304163.7969@freddy.simplesystems.org> References: <201102211707.p1LH7c8n075660@lurza.secnetix.de> <201102220931.17733.jhb@freebsd.org> <alpine.GSO.2.01.1102221304163.7969@freddy.simplesystems.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tuesday, February 22, 2011 2:10:57 pm Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > On Tue, 22 Feb 2011, John Baldwin wrote: > > > > Actually, the replacement for procfs is not sysctl, but ptrace(2), and there > > I have been following this discussion with my jaw agape. It seems > that the many men standing around this elephant are all perceiving > completely different things based on their own interests and > experiences. > > My own software is using procfs to efficiently determine the path to > the currently running executable. I am sure that other software does > the same since Linux procfs (and probably OS X) supports the same > mechanism. It is difficult to imagine how this would be done via > ptrace(2). It would not be the first syscall to return a path to userland (see __getcwd()). Presumably the reason a ptrace(2) OP has not been added for that is that it is that nothing that was ported from procfs to ptrace(2) has needed it. -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201102230737.36748.jhb>