From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Nov 12 06:02:04 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id GAA05524 for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 06:02:04 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers) Received: from konig.elte.hu (konig.elte.hu [157.181.6.22]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id GAA05482; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 06:01:51 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from sebesty@cs.elte.hu) Received: from neumann.cs.elte.hu (neumann [157.181.6.200]) by konig.elte.hu (8.8.3/8.7.3/7s) with ESMTP id NAA21992; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 13:04:38 +0100 Received: from localhost (sebesty@localhost) by neumann.cs.elte.hu (8.8.3/8.7.3/4c) with SMTP id NAA24228; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 13:04:04 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: neumann.cs.elte.hu: sebesty owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 13:04:04 +0100 (MET) From: Zoltan Sebestyen To: FreeBSD questions mailinglist cc: FreeBSD hackers mailinglist Subject: Q: about procfs Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk I'd like to know what will be the future of procfs on FreeBSD. Will it provide more information about the system and the processes like it does on Linux, or will I have to keep using kernel calls like the kvm_ functions? This question raises everytime I port a Linux application that uses procfs to gain some pieces of system level information. P.S.: A month ago or more I asked for on application which tracks the cpuload the same way that top does, but its source code is much simpler so I can learn how to do it. Finally I found that program, it's called iostat. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sebestyen Zoltan It all seems so stupid, it makes me want to give up. szoli@digo.inf..elte.hu But why should I give up, when it all seems so stupid? MAKE INSTALL NOT WAR