From owner-freebsd-current Thu Nov 18 17:20: 5 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from rover.village.org (rover.village.org [204.144.255.49]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9ABCC1551F for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 17:19:58 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from imp@harmony.village.org) Received: from harmony.village.org (harmony.village.org [10.0.0.6]) by rover.village.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA13146; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 18:19:55 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from imp@harmony.village.org) Received: from harmony.village.org (localhost.village.org [127.0.0.1]) by harmony.village.org (8.9.3/8.8.3) with ESMTP id SAA29399; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 18:20:25 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <199911190120.SAA29399@harmony.village.org> To: Matthew Dillon Subject: Re: PATCH for testing Cc: Alex Zepeda , Andreas Klemm , David Greenman , Sean Eric Fagan , current@FreeBSD.ORG In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 18 Nov 1999 17:04:20 PST." <199911190104.RAA88682@apollo.backplane.com> References: <199911190104.RAA88682@apollo.backplane.com> <199911181924.MAA27434@harmony.village.org> Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 18:20:25 -0700 From: Warner Losh Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In message <199911190104.RAA88682@apollo.backplane.com> Matthew Dillon writes: : I am all for removing -e, but I don't really like the idea of making : it optional nor do I like the idea of trying to maintain the capability : for the user's own processes - that simply makes the code even more : complex then it already is. The danger is that the option exists in : the first place. I'm not for removing -e. It is useful to root for debugging. If ps can get this info from procfs, procfs could effectively enforce this restriction. Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message