看板 FB_hackers 關於我們 聯絡資訊
On Wed, 14 Nov 2007, Skip Ford wrote: >> I agree regarding the duplication with ps(1) -- however, I'm generally of >> the opinion that ps(1) is overburdened as tools go, and that the goals are >> actually somehwat different--procstat(1) intentionally doesn't have the >> ability to generate a list of processes, for example, taking pids >> explicitly as the argument; likewise, historically ps(1) has not been >> interested in printing more than one line per process (although I think -h >> changed this). I'll do a bit more investigation as to how easily it can be >> wedged in, and do recognize the concern here. > > I understand, and I sort of knew that from the beginning which is why I > didn't provide feedback immediately. I don't have a suggestion as to what I > think should be done. > > While procstat(1) currently takes a list of pids, I wouldn't be surprised if > somebody adds code to list all processes, unless you block it. I think it > would be useful, especially since some of it's options produce single-line > per pid output, such as credentials. > > The two utilities do provide different information, it's just a little odd > to have two utilities with basically the same name. But I can't think of a > more appropriate name for procstat(1). FWIW, it looks like on Solaris, there are a series of psig(1), pstack(1), ptree(1), etc, tools for similar sorts of per-process inspection purposes. I think I prefer bundling it into a single tool, but it's certainly a similar idea. Maybe I should just rename procstat(1) to pinfo(1) and be done with it? Robert N M Watson Computer Laboratory University of Cambridge _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"