On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 4:49:50 pm Mikolaj Golub wrote: > On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 11:31:43AM -0500, John Baldwin wrote: > > On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 2:25:00 am Mikolaj Golub wrote: > > > IMHO, after adding procstat_getargv and procstat_getargv, the usage of > > > kvm_getargv() and kvm_getenvv() (at least in the new code) may be > > > deprecated. As this is stated in the man page, BUGS section, "these > > > routines do not belong in the kvm interface". I suppose they are part > > > of libkvm because there was no a better place for them. procstat(1) > > > prefers direct sysctl to them (so, again, code duplication, which I am > > > going to remove adding procstat_getargv/envv). > > > > Hmm, are you going to rewrite ps(1) to use libprocstat? Or rather, is that > > a > > goal someday? That is one current consumer of kvm_getargv/envv. That might > > be fine if we want to make more tools use libprocstat instead of using > > libkvm > > directly. > > I didn't have any plans for ps(1) :-) That is why I wrote about "new > code". But if you think it is good to do I might look at it one day...
I'm mostly hoping Robert chimes in to see if that was his intention for libprocstat. :) If we can ultimately replace all uses of kvm_get*v() with calls to procstat_get*v*() then I'm fine with some code duplication in the interim. -- John Baldwin _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
