Robert Watson wrote: > On Wed, 14 Nov 2007, Skip Ford wrote: > >Robert Watson wrote: > >>On Tue, 13 Nov 2007, Yuri wrote: > >> > >>>Thank you for letting me know about this new feature procstat. > >>> > >>>But is there any workaround in 6.3? I need to port one package that > >>>needs to lookup file names by FDs to the current FreeBSD and need some > >>>solution now. > >> > >>If the port uses a script to extract the data, a tool like lsof may do > >>the trick. However, I'm not sure there are any native APIs to query that > >>data "as shipped" in 6.3. Once I've had some reasonable feedback on > >>procstat(1), > > > >Well, the header file procstat.h is still missing from the tarball AFAICT > >so I don't know how many people are using it. > > Whoops! While you have obviously extracted or recreated the file, here's a > URL for everyone else: > > http://www.watson.org/~robert/freebsd/20071115-procstat.tgz
I recreated the file and am running it on RELENG_7. It applies with a few small offsets. > >I don't like having a procstat(1) utility along with a ps(1) utility. > >"procstat" seems short for process status as does "ps". Seems like > >procstat(1) should be a library with ps(1) the frontend, or ps(1) should > >be merged with procstat(1). > > > >Plus, the name "procstat" sounds an awful lot like a certain part of the > >body that makes me uncomfortable in my chair. Do you really want to spend > >the rest of your life asking people to see their procstat output? ;-) > > You are more evil than previously understood. :-) Just try saying procstat with a straight face now... > I agree regarding the duplication with ps(1) -- however, I'm generally of > the opinion that ps(1) is overburdened as tools go, and that the goals are > actually somehwat different--procstat(1) intentionally doesn't have the > ability to generate a list of processes, for example, taking pids > explicitly as the argument; likewise, historically ps(1) has not been > interested in printing more than one line per process (although I think -h > changed this). I'll do a bit more investigation as to how easily it can be > wedged in, and do recognize the concern here. I understand, and I sort of knew that from the beginning which is why I didn't provide feedback immediately. I don't have a suggestion as to what I think should be done. While procstat(1) currently takes a list of pids, I wouldn't be surprised if somebody adds code to list all processes, unless you block it. I think it would be useful, especially since some of it's options produce single-line per pid output, such as credentials. The two utilities do provide different information, it's just a little odd to have two utilities with basically the same name. But I can't think of a more appropriate name for procstat(1). -- Skip _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
