Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 12:21:47 +0000 (GMT) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> To: Skip Ford <skip@menantico.com> Cc: Yuri <yuri@rawbw.com>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: How to get filename of an open file descriptor Message-ID: <20071114121812.U2025@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <20071114112304.GA835@menantico.com> References: <1194896018.4738aa922f776@webmail.rawbw.com> <20071112214243.Y81124@fledge.watson.org> <1194905125.4738ce25a968c@webmail.rawbw.com> <20071112222557.N81124@fledge.watson.org> <1194980181.4739f355a32bc@webmail.rawbw.com> <20071114104157.D92502@fledge.watson.org> <20071114112304.GA835@menantico.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 14 Nov 2007, Skip Ford wrote: > Robert Watson wrote: >> On Tue, 13 Nov 2007, Yuri wrote: >> >>> Thank you for letting me know about this new feature procstat. >>> >>> But is there any workaround in 6.3? I need to port one package that needs >>> to lookup file names by FDs to the current FreeBSD and need some solution >>> now. >> >> If the port uses a script to extract the data, a tool like lsof may do the >> trick. However, I'm not sure there are any native APIs to query that data >> "as shipped" in 6.3. Once I've had some reasonable feedback on >> procstat(1), > > Well, the header file procstat.h is still missing from the tarball AFAICT so > I don't know how many people are using it. Whoops! While you have obviously extracted or recreated the file, here's a URL for everyone else: http://www.watson.org/~robert/freebsd/20071115-procstat.tgz > Not sure what type of feedback you want, but I've been using it since you > posted the link and it works as advertised. I like being able to see the vm > map without using procfs. Yeah, that was pretty much the motivation. I also plan to add the ability to dump signal handler disposition information. > I don't like having a procstat(1) utility along with a ps(1) utility. > "procstat" seems short for process status as does "ps". Seems like > procstat(1) should be a library with ps(1) the frontend, or ps(1) should be > merged with procstat(1). > > Plus, the name "procstat" sounds an awful lot like a certain part of the > body that makes me uncomfortable in my chair. Do you really want to spend > the rest of your life asking people to see their procstat output? ;-) You are more evil than previously understood. :-) I agree regarding the duplication with ps(1) -- however, I'm generally of the opinion that ps(1) is overburdened as tools go, and that the goals are actually somehwat different--procstat(1) intentionally doesn't have the ability to generate a list of processes, for example, taking pids explicitly as the argument; likewise, historically ps(1) has not been interested in printing more than one line per process (although I think -h changed this). I'll do a bit more investigation as to how easily it can be wedged in, and do recognize the concern here. > But, it works fine and provides access to information that's not readily > available by other means. Thanks for the feedback (working fine is useful feedback), Robert N M Watson Computer Laboratory University of Cambridge
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20071114121812.U2025>