From owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jul 17 15:12:39 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0590B37B401 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 15:12:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.pcnet.com (mail.pcnet.com [204.213.232.4]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5485243FDD for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 15:12:38 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from eischen@vigrid.com) Received: from mail.pcnet.com (mail.pcnet.com [204.213.232.4]) by mail.pcnet.com (8.12.8/8.12.1) with ESMTP id h6HMCbAI004742; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 18:12:37 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 18:12:37 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen X-Sender: eischen@pcnet5.pcnet.com To: Jung-uk Kim In-Reply-To: <200307171808.45353.jkim@niksun.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: Kai Mosebach cc: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: Threads in top X-BeenThere: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: deischen@freebsd.org List-Id: Threading on FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 22:12:39 -0000 On Thu, 17 Jul 2003, Jung-uk Kim wrote: > On Thursday 17 July 2003 05:55 pm, Daniel Eischen wrote: > > On Thu, 17 Jul 2003, Jung-uk Kim wrote: > > > On Thursday 17 July 2003 05:44 pm, Daniel Eischen wrote: > > > > On Thu, 17 Jul 2003, Jung-uk Kim wrote: > > > > > > > > Can you make showing threads No by default? I know the > > > > current top shows threads by default, but I don't think > > > > it should. > > > > > > Well, I just wanted to keep default behavior intact, just like > > > ps(1). *shrug* > > > > Yeah, I realize that, but the default behavior is wrong ;-) > > This was brought up in a different thread a few weeks > > ago, and there was no heartburn over defaulting it to > > not showing threads by default. > > If majority thinks that's the way it should be, I have no problem as > long as it behaves like ps(1). After all, I am not a committer. ;-) Oh, sorry. Sometimes I just assume that someone that commits a nice patch like that is a committer :-) -- Dan Eischen