Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 23:17:05 +1000 From: Sam Lawrance <boris@brooknet.com.au> To: Peter Pentchev <roam@ringlet.net> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: struct proc - basic question Message-ID: <1095081425.77709.62.camel@dirk.no.domain> In-Reply-To: <20040913125107.GB839@straylight.m.ringlet.net> References: <Pine.OSF.4.58.0409131355160.185678@sulu.ae.katowice.pl> <1095078631.77709.53.camel@dirk.no.domain> <20040913125107.GB839@straylight.m.ringlet.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 2004-09-13 at 22:51, Peter Pentchev wrote: > On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 10:30:31PM +1000, Sam Lawrance wrote: > > On Mon, 2004-09-13 at 22:01, Joanna Sledzik wrote: > > > Hi :) > > > I'm very very begginer in Unix system programming. > > > What function should I use to catch the struct proc for some process? > > > Is it possible to get the pointer to struct proc using for example the pid_t pid > > > as an argument? > > > > >From userland, maybe the kvm_* functions will do what you want. > > See the kvm, kvm_open and kvm_getprocs manpages. > > The kern.proc.all sysctl might be a better idea; see my other e-mail for > details. > Is there a functional difference? kvm_getprocs uses the kern.proc sysctls anyway. I did note the comment in the manpage that "these routines do not belong in the kvm interface". -Sam
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1095081425.77709.62.camel>