Hi
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 3:14 PM, Daniel Vetter
wrote:
> We not only have debugfs files to do pretty much the equivalent of
> lsof, we also have an ioctl. Not that compared to lsof this dumps a
> wee bit more information, but we can still get at that from debugfs
> easily.
>
> I've dug around
Hi
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 3:14 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> We not only have debugfs files to do pretty much the equivalent of
> lsof, we also have an ioctl. Not that compared to lsof this dumps a
> wee bit more information, but we can still get at that from debugfs
> easily.
>
> I've dug around i
We not only have debugfs files to do pretty much the equivalent of
lsof, we also have an ioctl. Not that compared to lsof this dumps a
wee bit more information, but we can still get at that from debugfs
easily.
I've dug around in mesa, libdrm and ddx histories and the only users
seem to be drm/tes
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 03:14:15PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> We not only have debugfs files to do pretty much the equivalent of
> lsof, we also have an ioctl. Not that compared to lsof this dumps a
> wee bit more information, but we can still get at that from debugfs
> easily.
Hmm, why are ret
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 03:14:15PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> We not only have debugfs files to do pretty much the equivalent of
> lsof, we also have an ioctl. Not that compared to lsof this dumps a
> wee bit more information, but we can still get at that from debugfs
> easily.
Hmm, why are ret
We not only have debugfs files to do pretty much the equivalent of
lsof, we also have an ioctl. Not that compared to lsof this dumps a
wee bit more information, but we can still get at that from debugfs
easily.
I've dug around in mesa, libdrm and ddx histories and the only users
seem to be drm/tes
