Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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>