Re: Porting from linux to FreeBSD (procfs question)

2008-01-03 Thread Ivan Voras
Fernando Apesteguía wrote: 1 - Try to rely the porting on the compatibility procfs from FreeBSD 2 - Do the things in a completely different way (which one is this? Invoking sysctl system call?) I would like to know from you which one is the best approach. The best way to do it is to

Re: Porting from linux to FreeBSD (procfs question)

2008-01-03 Thread Fernando Apesteguía
On Jan 3, 2008 2:47 PM, Ivan Voras [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Fernando Apesteguía wrote: 1 - Try to rely the porting on the compatibility procfs from FreeBSD 2 - Do the things in a completely different way (which one is this? Invoking sysctl system call?) I would like to know from you

Re: Porting from linux to FreeBSD (procfs question)

2008-01-03 Thread Ivan Voras
On 03/01/2008, Fernando Apesteguía [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, that's my problem. In Linux I can get from /proc/cpuinfo for example: name, model, stepping, cache size, clock speed, supported extensions, etc... But using sysctl in FreeBSD (sysctl -a) I can only see name and vendor for the

Re: Porting from linux to FreeBSD (procfs question)

2008-01-03 Thread Jerry McAllister
On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 02:14:57PM +0100, Fernando Apesteguía wrote: Hi all, First of all, Happy New Year. I have a question about porting an application from Linux to FreeBSD. The application I want to port, makes an extensive use of the procfs in Linux. It gathers a lot of

Re: Porting from linux to FreeBSD (procfs question)

2008-01-03 Thread Jeremy Chadwick
On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 05:16:42PM +0100, Ivan Voras wrote: On 03/01/2008, Fernando Apesteguía [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, that's my problem. In Linux I can get from /proc/cpuinfo for example: name, model, stepping, cache size, clock speed, supported extensions, etc... But using

Re: Porting from linux to FreeBSD (procfs question)

2008-01-03 Thread Patrick Lamaiziere
Le Thu, 3 Jan 2008 14:14:57 +0100, Fernando Apesteguía [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit : As I know, FreeBSD has some kind of procfs but more limited in terms of information. My questions is how should I proceed now? I see two options. 1 - Try to rely the porting on the compatibility procfs from