Hi, On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 3:21 PM, René Ladan <r...@freebsd.org> wrote: > 2011/10/11 Garrett Cooper <yaneg...@gmail.com>: >> On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 10:55 AM, Larry Rosenman <l...@lerctr.org> wrote: >>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2011, Matt Thyer wrote: >>> >>>> On Oct 12, 2011 3:25 AM, "Larry Rosenman" <l...@lerctr.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I didn't say bug for bug, just not generate stupid errors like the ffs >>>> >>>> one. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. >>>>> >>>>> Chuck Swiger <cswi...@mac.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Oct 11, 2011, at 6:59 AM, Larry Rosenman wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> We will NOT support clang as the compiler for lsof unless the system >>>> >>>> headers work the same way as gcc's do. >>>>> >>>>> That apparently means you won't support clang then, because it's not >>>> >>>> intended to be (or ever going to be) fully bug-for-bug "compatible" with >>>> GCC. In this case, at least, clang is reporting legitimate issues which >>>> should be fixed, even if folks continue to build lsof with GCC from now >>>> until the end of days. >>>> >>>> The elegant solution would be to avoid this problem altogether by >>>> re-implementation of lsof using interfaces into the kernel that provide >>>> the >>>> required information. >>>> >>>> bsdof anyone? >>>> >>> lsof is PORTABLE and available on LOTS of platforms. >>> >>> We have fstat, but lsof can be used between differing OS's. >>> >>> We've also asked for Kernel interfaces before, but no one volunteered >>> to make the KPI for them. >>> >>> I'm sure if someone(tm) (not me, insufficient knowledge) was >>> to make interfaces for ALL that lsof needs, Vic would implement it >>> as it would make his life easier. >> >> It would be nice in general if there were sysctls for accessing this >> data as even utilities in base have libkvm magic sprinkled around with >> pointer magic by default instead of using the sysctl analogs (I'm >> referring to ifconfig, netstat, etc), and as noted by some.. using >> libkvm on live memory could be potentially; the only valid usage I can >> really think of is when dealing with . >> >> What data does Vic need to grab from the kernel in order to get the >> file descriptor data? >> > Just a quick note that FreeBSD 9 and later also have libprocstat which > could be a nice interface. I haven't looked at the details yet though. > libprocstat is _itself_ a problem:
% git grep 'define _KERNEL' . [...] lib/libprocstat/cd9660.c:#define _KERNEL lib/libprocstat/nwfs.c:#define _KERNEL lib/libprocstat/smbfs.c:#define _KERNEL lib/libprocstat/udf.c:#define _KERNEL lib/libprocstat/zfs.c:#define _KERNEL [...] ok, I admit this is all FS related stuff :) - Arnaud _______________________________________________ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
