Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 23:49:50 +0200 From: Mikolaj Golub <trociny@FreeBSD.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: Stanislav Sedov <stas@freebsd.org>, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: libprocstat(3): retrieve process command line args and environment Message-ID: <20130123214949.GA3120@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <201301231131.43972.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <20130119151253.GB88025@gmail.com> <9679EEE4-BE52-493E-9188-CAECEE5E63D3@freebsd.org> <20130123072459.GA48402@gmail.com> <201301231131.43972.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 11:31:43AM -0500, John Baldwin wrote: > On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 2:25:00 am Mikolaj Golub wrote: > > IMHO, after adding procstat_getargv and procstat_getargv, the usage of > > kvm_getargv() and kvm_getenvv() (at least in the new code) may be > > deprecated. As this is stated in the man page, BUGS section, "these > > routines do not belong in the kvm interface". I suppose they are part > > of libkvm because there was no a better place for them. procstat(1) > > prefers direct sysctl to them (so, again, code duplication, which I am > > going to remove adding procstat_getargv/envv). > > Hmm, are you going to rewrite ps(1) to use libprocstat? Or rather, is that a > goal someday? That is one current consumer of kvm_getargv/envv. That might > be fine if we want to make more tools use libprocstat instead of using libkvm > directly. I didn't have any plans for ps(1) :-) That is why I wrote about "new code". But if you think it is good to do I might look at it one day... -- Mikolaj Golub
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20130123214949.GA3120>