From owner-freebsd-current Mon Nov 15 14:13:50 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from kithrup.com (kithrup.com [205.179.156.40]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 718CE14D4E for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 14:13:47 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from sef@kithrup.com) Received: (from sef@localhost) by kithrup.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA20176; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 14:13:46 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from sef) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 14:13:46 -0800 (PST) From: Sean Eric Fagan Message-Id: <199911152213.OAA20176@kithrup.com> To: current@freebsd.org Reply-To: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: PATCH for testing In-Reply-To: <22209.942703421.kithrup.freebsd.current@critter.freebsd.dk> Organization: Kithrup Enterprises, Ltd. Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In article <22209.942703421.kithrup.freebsd.current@critter.freebsd.dk> you write: >The p_args.patch patch implements a cache of the commandline arguments >in the process structure and makes ps(1) pick it up from there with >sysctl rather than by groping around in the target process memory. I don't think this should go in at all. It increases the size of the proc structure (thereby affecting _all_ processes) gratuitously. While I'm generally in favour of having the process arguments kept around, the "BSD way" has been to only examine them in user memory, despite that being unreliable and just annoying. The benefits are fairly minimal, and I don't believe justify the cost incurred. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message