From owner-svn-src-head@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Oct 1 20:54:05 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-head@freebsd.org Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 1233) id 9C09A1065672; Sat, 1 Oct 2011 20:54:05 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2011 20:54:05 +0000 From: Alexander Best To: Jilles Tjoelker Message-ID: <20111001205405.GA72884@freebsd.org> References: <201109290631.p8T6VgJ3008377@svn.freebsd.org> <20110929121457.GA53600@freebsd.org> <20111001130643.GC91943@hoeg.nl> <20111001171401.GA47100@freebsd.org> <20111001203441.GA88035@stack.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20111001203441.GA88035@stack.nl> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, Ed Schouten , svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, Edward Tomasz Napierala Subject: Re: svn commit: r225868 - head/bin/ps X-BeenThere: svn-src-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the src tree for head/-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2011 20:54:05 -0000 On Sat Oct 1 11, Jilles Tjoelker wrote: > On Sat, Oct 01, 2011 at 05:14:01PM +0000, Alexander Best wrote: > > On Sat Oct 1 11, Ed Schouten wrote: > > > Also, it would be better if we replaced the "??" string with "-". When > > > we print "??", it actually means: this process has no controlling > > > terminal, not that we don't know which TTY it is. > > > good point. also i was thinking: if a process had a controlling > > terminal, but that terminal has been revoked, are users really > > interested to know what the name of that revoked terminal was? can't > > we just use "-"? is it important to know whether a process never had a > > controlling terminal, or had one at some point, but not anymore? > > I think this is potentially useful, because it shows that the process > did not explicitly detach from the terminal (such as via setsid(2)). > > Particularly if the terminal is real (not a pseudo-terminal), its name > may be useful in recognition. > > When asking for processes attached to a specific terminal with ps's t > option, ps will also show processes that used to be attached ("-"), > possibly allowing users to keep track of processes better. > > It appears that even if a terminal is "revoked" in this way, it still > prevents reuse of the pts number. that's a very good explanation. :) so yeah...let's keep it the way it is. > > > also the ps(1) man page claims that a process running on console has a "TT" > > entry of "con". i've never seen such an entry. is this still correct? > > This may indeed be no longer the case, although it was never common to > see "con". With syscons in multi-user mode, you cannot log in on > /dev/console, only on /dev/ttyv*. With syscons in single-user mode, > ps(1) says "v0" or "ttyv0" but tty(1) says /dev/console. > > > and the last point i'd like to make: looking at 'ps alx' on freebsd > > 7.x makes it easy to distinguish between ttys and pts'es, because they > > are names ttyvX and ttypX. looking at the same output under HEAD, all > > pts terminal descriptors have moved to /dev/pts/X. so they will not > > show up as pX, but merely as X. > > > can't we tell ps to prefix anything coming from /dev/pts with a "p"? > > > in this output: > > > 1001 1780 1778 1 16 0 15956 3136 pause Is 0 0:00,02 /usr/local/bin/zsh > > > users are supposed to know that the "0" stands for /dev/pts/0. imho > > > 1001 1780 1778 1 16 0 15956 3136 pause Is p0 0:00,02 /usr/local/bin/zsh > > > would be much better here (like under freebsd 7.x). > > I rather like the new output. Pseudo-terminals are by far the most > common kind of terminal and there may be many of them, so it makes sense > not to have a prefix. The t option in ps also accepts these short names, > like 'ps lt0'. All other terminal names start with a letter. > > In FreeBSD 7, the first 256 pseudo-terminals are named > /dev/tty[pqrsPQRS][0-9a-v]. A few more letters can be used to provide a > few more pseudo-terminals but even then two characters suffice. > > The TTY keyword shows the full pathname relative to /dev. i think we should adjust the following paragraph " tt An abbreviation for the pathname of the controlling terminal, if any. The abbreviation consists of the three letters follow- ing /dev/tty, or, for the console, ``con''. This is followed by a `-' if the process can no longer reach that controlling terminal (i.e., it has been revoked). " to something like this then " tt An abbreviation for the pathname of the controlling terminal, if any. The abbreviation consists of the three letters follow- ing /dev/tty, or, for pseudo-terminals, the entry in /dev/pts. This is followed by a `-' if the process can no longer reach that controlling terminal (i.e., it has been revoked). The full pathname of the controlling terminal is available via the tty keyword. " cheers. alex ps: i am also wondering, why -o and -O aren't mutually exclusive. this would make more sense to me. > > -- > Jilles Tjoelker