From owner-freebsd-current  Mon Nov 15 18:22:35 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from apollo.backplane.com (apollo.backplane.com [216.240.41.2])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8D7D14E1E
	for <current@FreeBSD.ORG>; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 18:22:33 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from dillon@apollo.backplane.com)
Received: (from dillon@localhost)
	by apollo.backplane.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) id SAA46666;
	Mon, 15 Nov 1999 18:22:30 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from dillon)
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 18:22:30 -0800 (PST)
From: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>
Message-Id: <199911160222.SAA46666@apollo.backplane.com>
To: David Greenman <dg@root.com>
Cc: Sean Eric Fagan <sef@kithrup.com>, current@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: PATCH for testing 
References:  <199911160144.RAA08909@implode.root.com>
Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

:In my opinion, doing so majorly bloats the proc struct for no good reason and
:also introduces gratuitous incompatibilities for utilities that want to modify
:their argv[*] and expect the modifications to show up in ps(1).
:
:-DG
:
:David Greenman

    Well, I think there is an issue in the proc struct bloat but I disagree
    strongly about modifying argv - any worthwhile code uses setproctitle()
    now simply because the argv space is highly dependant on the number of
    arguments passed to the program, and thus non deterministic.  Since we
    have setproctitle(), we can depreciate the argv junk.

					-Matt
					Matthew Dillon 
					<dillon@backplane.com>


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message