[PATCH 2/2] get and convert boot time once and use as needed

--- winsup/utils/ps.cc | 25 - 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) diff --git a/winsup/utils/ps.cc b/winsup/utils/ps.cc index c81805ab6..75a91f5be 100644 --- a/winsup/utils/ps.cc +++ b/winsup/utils/ps.cc @@ -164,6 +164,7 @@ main (int argc, char *argv[]) con

[PATCH 1/2] default ps -W process start time to system boot time when inaccessible, 0, -1

--- winsup/utils/ps.cc | 11 +++ 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+) diff --git a/winsup/utils/ps.cc b/winsup/utils/ps.cc index 4fce3e0b3..c81805ab6 100644 --- a/winsup/utils/ps.cc +++ b/winsup/utils/ps.cc @@ -337,6 +337,17 @@ main (int argc, char *argv[]) p->start_time = to_

[PATCH 0/2] default ps -W process start time to boot time when unavailable

non-elevated users can not access system startup process start times, defaulting to time_t 0, displaying as Dec 31/Jan 1 depending on time zone, so instead use system boot time, which is within seconds of correct, to avoid WMI overhead getting correct system startup process start time Brian Inglis

Re: [PATCH fifo 0/8] Allow a FIFO to have multiple writers

On 3/23/2019 4:02 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > Your patch series looks really good. For now I pushed it into the > topic/fifo branch as you suggested. Thanks. > Just be aware that it won't get much 3rd party testing this way, so as > soon as you feel more confident, let's move it into master.

Re: [PATCH] default ps -W process start time to system boot time when inaccessible, 0, -1

On 2019-03-23 13:49, Eric Blake wrote: > On 3/23/19 1:41 PM, Achim Gratz wrote: >> Corinna Vinschen writes: replacing one lie with another that is less easy to spot doesn't sound the right thing to do. How about ps if reported "N/A" or something to that effect instead? >>> 1 Jan 197

Re: [PATCH] default ps -W process start time to system boot time when inaccessible, 0, -1

On Mar 23 14:32, Brian Inglis wrote: > On 2019-03-23 12:36, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > On Mar 23 18:17, Achim Gratz wrote: > >> replacing one lie with another that is less easy to spot doesn't sound > >> the right thing to do. How about ps if reported "N/A" or something to > >> that effect instea

Re: [PATCH] default ps -W process start time to system boot time when inaccessible, 0, -1

On 2019-03-23 12:41, Achim Gratz wrote: > Corinna Vinschen writes: >>> replacing one lie with another that is less easy to spot doesn't sound >>> the right thing to do. How about ps if reported "N/A" or something to >>> that effect instead? >> 1 Jan 1970 may also be a good hint... > Well, that was

Re: [PATCH] default ps -W process start time to system boot time when inaccessible, 0, -1

On 2019-03-23 12:36, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Mar 23 18:17, Achim Gratz wrote: >> replacing one lie with another that is less easy to spot doesn't sound >> the right thing to do. How about ps if reported "N/A" or something to >> that effect instead? > 1 Jan 1970 may also be a good hint... Exc

Re: [PATCH] default ps -W process start time to system boot time when inaccessible, 0, -1

On 2019-03-23 11:04, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Mar 22 21:45, Brian Inglis wrote: >> diff --git a/winsup/utils/ps.cc b/winsup/utils/ps.cc >> index 4fce3e0b3..c81805ab6 100644 >> --- a/winsup/utils/ps.cc >> +++ b/winsup/utils/ps.cc >> @@ -337,6 +337,17 @@ main (int argc, char *argv[]) >>

Re: [PATCH fifo 0/8] Allow a FIFO to have multiple writers

Hey Ken, On Mar 22 19:30, Ken Brown wrote: > Currently a FIFO can have only one writer. A second attempt to open > the FIFO for writing blocks while fhandler_fifo::open waits for the > read_ready event to be signalled. > > This patch series tries to fix the problem by having the reader open > mu

Re: [PATCH] default ps -W process start time to system boot time when inaccessible, 0, -1

On 3/23/19 1:41 PM, Achim Gratz wrote: > Corinna Vinschen writes: >>> replacing one lie with another that is less easy to spot doesn't sound >>> the right thing to do. How about ps if reported "N/A" or something to >>> that effect instead? >> >> 1 Jan 1970 may also be a good hint... > > Well, tha

Re: [PATCH] default ps -W process start time to system boot time when inaccessible, 0, -1

Corinna Vinschen writes: >> replacing one lie with another that is less easy to spot doesn't sound >> the right thing to do. How about ps if reported "N/A" or something to >> that effect instead? > > 1 Jan 1970 may also be a good hint... Well, that was the point: I can deduce just from that date

Re: [PATCH] default ps -W process start time to system boot time when inaccessible, 0, -1

On Mar 23 18:17, Achim Gratz wrote: > > Hi Brian, > > replacing one lie with another that is less easy to spot doesn't sound > the right thing to do. How about ps if reported "N/A" or something to > that effect instead? 1 Jan 1970 may also be a good hint... Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Cygwi

Re: [PATCH] default ps -W process start time to system boot time when inaccessible, 0, -1

Hi Brian, replacing one lie with another that is less easy to spot doesn't sound the right thing to do. How about ps if reported "N/A" or something to that effect instead? Regards, Achim. -- +<[Q+ Matrix-12 WAVE#46+305 Neuron microQkb Andromeda XTk Blofeld]>+ Samples for the Waldorf Blofeld

Re: [PATCH] default ps -W process start time to system boot time when inaccessible, 0, -1

Hi Brian, On Mar 22 21:45, Brian Inglis wrote: > > diff --git a/winsup/utils/ps.cc b/winsup/utils/ps.cc > index 4fce3e0b3..c81805ab6 100644 > --- a/winsup/utils/ps.cc > +++ b/winsup/utils/ps.cc > @@ -337,6 +337,17 @@ main (int argc, char *argv[]) > p->start_time = to_time_t (&ct); >