> > I think the idea (of a procfs ps) was shot down on the > lists some time > > ago because ps needs to retain the ability to look at > the process list > > in a kernel coredump. IMHO that's a lot of messy kvm > groveling and > > associated kernel-to-userland sync dependencies, just to > cater to the > > (generous figure) 0.5% of the people out there who have > 1) a crashing > > FreeBSD box and 2) the expertise and the will to debug > the crash dump. > > I think that issue needs to be revisited somehow. > > Well.. I do use crash dumps, but rarely use ps on them.. > Even so you could have > 2 implementations of ps, or a ps which allows you to > compile in a different > 'back end'. That way you can use either easily.
I concur; those were my thoughts exactly. > > Unfortunately I don't have my proposal written in diff(1) at the > > moment, but writing all this out makes me really want to > go ahead and > > do it. Then again, somebody DID ask for a CS project. :) > > Heh :) Say, when is babelfish going to put up an English->diff(1) translator? Would make things a hell of a lot easier around here! :> Jason Young accessUS Chief Network Engineer To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
