In article <13adfa7f-0d25-9fa0-6559-706e693dc...@gmx.com>,
Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
>Is there any good reason that fstat(1) needs kvm(3)? Is it viable to
>offer its functionality with sysctl(3), in particular in struct kinfo_file?
>
>I'm have got a use-case (in GDB (*)) where I would make use of m
Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
> Is there any good reason that fstat(1) needs kvm(3)? Is it viable to
> offer its functionality with sysctl(3), in particular in struct kinfo_file?
The only reason that fstat wasn't converted to use sysctl way back when
was time/motivation. I couldn't think of a simple e
Is there any good reason that fstat(1) needs kvm(3)? Is it viable to
offer its functionality with sysctl(3), in particular in struct kinfo_file?
I'm have got a use-case (in GDB (*)) where I would make use of more
fields in struct kinfo_file, at least file path and socket information.
Maybe it wou
