Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2023 12:32:02 +0100 From: Jamie Landeg-Jones <jamie@catflap.org> To: pstef@FreeBSD.org, jamie@catflap.org Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ps(1) bugs and problems Message-ID: <202308111132.37BBW23A064898@donotpassgo.dyslexicfish.net> In-Reply-To: <ZNXJJxBkMEATT8DE@freefall.freebsd.org> References: <202307282307.36SN7b7v026284@donotpassgo.dyslexicfish.net> <ZMVoTXZKgKImgm22@freefall.freebsd.org> <ZNXJJxBkMEATT8DE@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Piotr P. Stefaniak" <pstef@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > I thought about this more and the change I proposed in > https://reviews.freebsd.org/D41231 seems unnecessarily complicated, > regardless of which characters will be chosen to denote going up and > down the process tree. ps -D'^$' suggests there are possibly more > characters to use and maybe even some kind of DSL is available. > > So a simpler option is to keep the new aspect of -d (that it traverses > the tree down, even if ps is given a list of PIDs) and add a -D that > would work the same, but the other direction. That is indeed cleaner, and whilst the new "-D" option would cover the particular use case I mentioned, the old sorting method with arbitary, and specific PIDS is still useful. How about reverting '-d', and adding "-D" for descending, and "-A" for ascending? Cheers, Jamie
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?202308111132.37BBW23A064898>