On Sat, Jul 30, 2005 at 10:44:09PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > When I discussed this with Albert Cahalan, he *strongly* objected to > > allowing whitespace in security contexts, as he felt it would break > > scripts that parsed 'ps -Z' output. > > Right, I thought this was actually a feature :) This is how ps > continues to show expected output under stacker. Given naturally limited > space, showing output for multiple modules may not be a good idea. If > you want more detail, you go to /proc/pid/attr/current...
OK. As long as you are aware of it, which it sounds like you are. Serge, I think it should be documented as a known issue. > Clearly this is limiting, but then so is the one line per process you > get with ps - "fixing" that is obviously not acceptable. Is there Nothing jumps out at me. > Is there any example where the current > behavior is actually a problem - two modules which it makes sense to > stack, which both need to give output under ps? I don't know. Isn't this the big negative against stacker, controlling the composition? pstools has clearly cast it's vote :-) Tony - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
