In article ,
Johnny Billquist wrote:
>On 2017-08-27 14:09, D'Arcy Cain wrote:
>> On 08/27/2017 03:59 AM, Christos Zoulas wrote:
>>> LGTM, perhaps leave a comment /* old P_FSTRACEÂ Â Â 0x0001 */
>>> instead of completely removing the constants for now as a reminder.
>>
>> Isn't that sort of
On 2017-08-27 14:09, D'Arcy Cain wrote:
On 08/27/2017 03:59 AM, Christos Zoulas wrote:
LGTM, perhaps leave a comment /* old P_FSTRACE 0x0001 */
instead of completely removing the constants for now as a reminder.
Isn't that sort of duplicating what CVS does?
I would say no. CVS allows
On 2017-08-27 23:20, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
On 27.08.2017 16:07, Johnny Billquist wrote:
On 2017-08-27 14:09, D'Arcy Cain wrote:
On 08/27/2017 03:59 AM, Christos Zoulas wrote:
LGTM, perhaps leave a comment /* old P_FSTRACE0x0001 */
instead of completely removing the constants for now
On 27.08.2017 16:07, Johnny Billquist wrote:
> On 2017-08-27 14:09, D'Arcy Cain wrote:
>> On 08/27/2017 03:59 AM, Christos Zoulas wrote:
>>> LGTM, perhaps leave a comment /* old P_FSTRACE0x0001 */
>>> instead of completely removing the constants for now as a reminder.
>>
>> Isn't that sort
On Aug 27, 8:09am, da...@netbsd.org (D'Arcy Cain) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: /proc/#/ctl removal
| Isn't that sort of duplicating what CVS does?
Yes, but:
1. it has been existing practice
2. it is not easy to find the missing value from cvs
3. when someone wants to add a new value, it
On 08/27/2017 03:59 AM, Christos Zoulas wrote:
LGTM, perhaps leave a comment /* old P_FSTRACE 0x0001 */
instead of completely removing the constants for now as a reminder.
Isn't that sort of duplicating what CVS does?
--
D'Arcy J.M. Cain
http://www.NetBSD.org/ IM:da...@vex.net
On 27.08.2017 09:59, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> On Aug 26, 4:04pm, n...@gmx.com (Kamil Rytarowski) wrote:
> -- Subject: Re: /proc/#/ctl removal
>
> | I will do it.
> |
> | Draft patch: http://netbsd.org/~kamil/patch-00036-procfs_ctl.txt
> |
> | I plan to commit it on Mo
On Aug 26, 4:04pm, n...@gmx.com (Kamil Rytarowski) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: /proc/#/ctl removal
| I will do it.
|
| Draft patch: http://netbsd.org/~kamil/patch-00036-procfs_ctl.txt
|
| I plan to commit it on Monday.
LGTM, perhaps leave a comment /* old P_FSTRACE 0x0001 */
instead of
On 21.08.2017 12:13, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> In article ,
> Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
>> -=-=-=-=-=-
>> -=-=-=-=-=-
>>
>> I plan to remove the filesystem process tracing capability through
>> /proc/#/ctl. This is a legacy interface from 4.4BSD, and it was
>> introduced to overcome shortcomings of
On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 06:16:54PM +0200, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
> I plan to remove the filesystem process tracing capability through
> /proc/#/ctl. This is a legacy interface from 4.4BSD, and it was
> introduced to overcome shortcomings of ptrace(2) at that time, which are
> no longer relevan
In article ,
Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>I plan to remove the filesystem process tracing capability through
>/proc/#/ctl. This is a legacy interface from 4.4BSD, and it was
>introduced to overcome shortcomings of ptrace(2) at that time, which are
>no longer relevant (perf
I plan to remove the filesystem process tracing capability through
/proc/#/ctl. This is a legacy interface from 4.4BSD, and it was
introduced to overcome shortcomings of ptrace(2) at that time, which are
no longer relevant (performance). Today /proc/#/ctl offers a narrow
subset of ptrace(2) command
12 matches
Mail list logo
