From owner-freebsd-hackers  Wed May 21 10:44:35 1997
Return-Path: <owner-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id KAA23578
          for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 21 May 1997 10:44:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.50])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA23565
          for <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Wed, 21 May 1997 10:44:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id KAA03570; Wed, 21 May 1997 10:43:02 -0700
From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
Message-Id: <199705211743.KAA03570@phaeton.artisoft.com>
Subject: Re: pure /proc ps?
To: black@zen.cypher.net (Ben Black)
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 10:43:02 -0700 (MST)
Cc: terry@lambert.org, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.91.970521120749.17872N-100000@zen.cypher.net> from "Ben Black" at May 21, 97 12:08:48 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-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> > > is there any hope of a pure /proc ps on freebsd?
> >
> > Not as long as "-M core", "-N system", and "-W swap" exist to allow
> > running ps against system-dump images.
>
> so why does ps try to access anything other than /proc when i *don't* use 
> those options?

So that it's not twice as large as it would otherwise be for containing
two seperate copies of the data lookup code.


					Terry Lambert
					terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.