In article <20404.1353628...@splode.eterna.com.au>, matthew green <m...@eterna.com.au> wrote: > >> | this seems like a fairly big semantic change to me. >> | >> | could you change it to take a new option to look in argv[0] instead >> | of p_comm? p_comm is not changeable by the user. >> >> You could already do this with -f. The point was to make the default case >> behave intuitively. Adding an option is against that. I could add backwards >> compatibility by checking both, but I think that in the long term this will >> be dangerous and confusing (since you might end up killing more than you >> thought you would...) > >but again, it's a semantic change. > >the old system was a constant identifier that never changed over >the life of the process (it may not be unique.) the argument list >is under the control of the process itself, so what's being matched >here is a different thing. > >i guess i've known about the 16-byte limitation and understood it, >but since it was p_comm it was a reasonable limit. now there is >no way to match against p_comm at all, right?
No there is not; and should we add it, we should consider truncating the provided string to 16 characters... christos
