Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 20:59:06 -0800 From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org> To: "Alton, Matthew" <Matthew.Alton@anheuser-busch.com> Cc: "'Hackers@FreeBSD.ORG'" <Hackers@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: procfs development Message-ID: <20020403045906.GB93885@elvis.mu.org> In-Reply-To: <E1450DFD283DD61184900002A5F0032356BD7C@STLABCEXG024> References: <E1450DFD283DD61184900002A5F0032356BD7C@STLABCEXG024>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Alton, Matthew <Matthew.Alton@anheuser-busch.com> [020402 16:18] wrote: > > I managed to glean from <sys/procfs.h> that the FreeBSD implementation > is basically a barebones interface that is only there for gdb to work > with. > > So has there been any talk of making the ctl file take > command/operands structs as input, and/or the status file offer > elaborate structures as output, or an lwp directory, etc? Not really, if someone where to present a patchset and documentation then it would likely be integrated. -- -Alfred Perlstein [alfred@freebsd.org] 'Instead of asking why a piece of software is using "1970s technology," start asking why software is ignoring 30 years of accumulated wisdom.' Tax deductible donations for FreeBSD: http://www.freebsdfoundation.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020403045906.GB93885>