Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 11:05:37 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: black@zen.cypher.net (Ben Black) Cc: terry@lambert.org, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: pure /proc ps? Message-ID: <199705211805.LAA03656@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.91.970521130833.17872P-100000@zen.cypher.net> from "Ben Black" at May 21, 97 01:09:02 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > > > 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. > > can't it just skip the non-/proc parts if it doesn't have the offending > options ont he command line? Sure. And then it would have code for the non-proc parts in case you did put the arguments on the command line, and it would have a duplicate method of getting the same data via /proc if you didn't (I guess it would also have to verify that /proc has been mounted). And it would be larger as a result, with no increased functionality. Personally, I think that 'ps' in the system dump case should be built into the "crash" proram, not into 'ps', and that 'ps' should use /proc and that mounting /proc should be as mandatory as I believe mounting /dev should be. Talk to Jordan, Bruce, Poul, David, John, and the other core members about OK'ing the change. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199705211805.LAA03656>