On 24 Jan 2013, at 16:20, John Baldwin wrote: >>> 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... > > I'm mostly hoping Robert chimes in to see if that was his intention for > libprocstat. :) If we can ultimately replace all uses of kvm_get*v() with > calls to procstat_get*v*() then I'm fine with some code duplication in the > interim.
Originally there was just proctstat(1), but it made sense to begin re-encapsulating it in a libprocstat(3) because the code there is potentially extremely reusable. This conflicts a bit with libkvm(3), which mysteriously knows about sysctlbyname(3) despite a name suggesting otherwise. You can imagine various approaches to fixing this, but indeed, making libprocstat(3) the first-class citizen and preferring it for both kvm and sysctl methods sounds like the way to go. I actually want to make libprocstat also support snmp, but I've never actually found the time to investigate doing that. One of my main unmet goals for procstat(1) was to introduce an extremely machine-readable output format for it -- e.g., something XML-based or similar. I'd still love to see that happen. Robert _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
