From owner-freebsd-current Wed Jul 31 13:03:24 1996 Return-Path: owner-current Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id NAA21733 for current-outgoing; Wed, 31 Jul 1996 13:03:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.211]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id NAA21721 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 1996 13:03:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id NAA02651; Wed, 31 Jul 1996 13:02:18 -0700 From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199607312002.NAA02651@phaeton.artisoft.com> Subject: Re: Just a note that libkvm/ps/etc need to be recompiled To: toor@dyson.iquest.net (John S. Dyson) Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 13:02:18 -0700 (MST) Cc: current@FreeBSD.org In-Reply-To: <199607300330.WAA00274@dyson.iquest.net> from "John S. Dyson" at Jul 29, 96 10:30:40 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-current@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > Since I backed out the VM changes, if you have rebuilt libkvm/ps/etc, then > you will have to rebuild them again... There doesn't seem to be a good reason for using the kvm interface instead of procfs. Unfortunately, to commit to that, procfs would have to become mandatory, since a shared interface would be hard. Would not being able to run ps on a kernel dump be bad? Or would it be worth supporting both interfaces? Either way, you'd need a libkvm that matched the kernel, but it would save every day use from all of these recompiles (w and so on, too). Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.