From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Apr  4 10:31:58 2007
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: current@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20A0116A402;
	Wed,  4 Apr 2007 10:31:58 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from bright@elvis.mu.org)
Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1280813C45E;
	Wed,  4 Apr 2007 10:31:58 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from bright@elvis.mu.org)
Received: by elvis.mu.org (Postfix, from userid 1192)
	id 65AD61A4D8E; Wed,  4 Apr 2007 03:12:22 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 03:12:22 -0700
From: Alfred Perlstein <alfred@freebsd.org>
To: Howard Su <howard0su@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20070404101222.GU61362@elvis.mu.org>
References: <f126fae00704040118w25a7b291xdcf1b6300bab1ceb@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <f126fae00704040118w25a7b291xdcf1b6300bab1ceb@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i
Cc: current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: [Review] Remove procfs dependency of truss
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 10:31:58 -0000

* Howard Su <howard0su@gmail.com> [070404 01:20] wrote:
> Following the suggestion in idea page, I proposed the attached patch.
> I didn't change any kernel part because I think PTRACE(2) is
> functional although man page didn't document it.
> 
> I tested the patch under i386 and amd64 box. The help on testing and
> code review will be appreciated.

wow, well done!  any draw backs to using ptrace over procfs?

have you tested performance?

-Alfred